We were talking about the Cohen guilty plea and the likely ramifications from it. The cliches and boilerplate talking points aren’t applicable here or in any legitimate political discussion.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .
- Thread starter Sope Creek
- Start date
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...a-deal-is-prosecutors-attempt-to-set-up-trump
The usual procedures here would be for the FEC to investigate complaints and sort through these murky laws to determine if these kinds of payments are personal in nature or more properly classified as campaign expenditures. And, on the Daniels’ payment that was made and reimbursed by Trump, it is again a question of whether that was made for personal reasons (especially since they have been trying since 2011 to obtain agreement). Just because it would be helpful to the campaign does not convert it to a campaign expenditure. Think of a candidate with bad teeth who had dental work done to look better for the campaign; his campaign still could not pay for it because it’s a personal expenditure.
Contrast what is going on here with the treatment of the millions of dollars paid to a Democratic law firm which, in turn, paid out money to political research firm Fusion GPS and British ex-spy Christopher Steele without listing them on any campaign expenditure form — despite crystal-clear laws and regulations that the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds must be listed. This rule was even tightened recently. There is no question that hiring spies to do oppo research in Russia is a campaign expenditure, and yet, no prosecutorial raids have been sprung on the law firm, Fusion GPS or Steele. Reason: It does not “get” Trump.
So, Trump spends $130,000 to keep the lid on a personal story and the full weight of state prosecutors comes down on his lawyer, tossing attorney-client privilege to the wind. Democrats spend potentially millions on secret oppo research and no serious criminal investigation occurs.
You can add that to Obama's own FEC issues after he was elected. No impeachment there. He got fined:
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...g-for-hiding-donors-keeping-illegal-donations
This country is 5 years from being completely ungovernable.
Here we go, from Russia with love to campaign finance with love.
Why was Michael Cohen investigated? Because the “Steele dossier” had him making secret trips to meet with Russians that never happened, so his business dealings got a thorough scrubbing and, in the process, he fell into the special counsel’s Manafort bin — the bin reserved for squeezing until the juice comes out. And now we are back to 1998 all over again, with presidents and presidential candidates covering up their alleged marital misdeeds and prosecutors trying to turn legal acts into illegal ones by inventing new crimes.
The plot to get President Trump out of office thickens, as Cohen obviously was his own mini-crime syndicate and decided that his betrayals of Trump meant he would be better served turning on his old boss to cut the best deal with prosecutors he could rather than holding out and getting the full Manafort treatment. That was clear the minute he hired attorney Lanny Davis, who doesn’t try cases and did past work for Hillary Clinton. Cohen had recorded his client, trying to entrap him, sold information about Trump (while acting as his lawyer) to corporations for millions of dollars, and didn’t pay taxes on millions.
The sweetener for the prosecutors, of course, was getting Cohen to plead guilty to campaign violations that were not campaign violations. Money paid to people who come out of the woodwork and shake down people under threat of revealing bad sexual stories are not legitimate campaign expenditures. They are personal expenditures. That is true for both candidates we like and candidates we don’t. Just imagine if candidates used campaign funds instead of their own money to pay folks like Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about affairs; they would get indicted for misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes and for tax evasion.
There appear to be two payments involved in this unusual plea — Cohen pleaded guilty to a campaign violation for having “coordinated” the American Media Inc. payment to Karen McDougal for her story, not for actually making the payment. So he is pleading guilty over a corporate contribution he did not make.
Think about this for a minute: Suppose ABC had paid Stormy Daniel for her story in coordination with Michael Avenatti or maybe even the Democratic National Committee’s law firm on the eve of the election; by this reasoning, if the purpose of this money paid, just before the election, would be to hurt Trump and help Clinton win, this payment would be a corporate political contribution. If using it not to get Trump would be a corporate contribution, then using it to get Trump also has to be a corporate contribution. That’s why neither are corporate contributions and this is a bogus approach to federal election law. (Note that none of the donors in the 2012 John Edwards case faced any legal issues and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruled their payments were not campaign contributions that had to be reported — facts that prosecutors tried to suppress at trial.)
Is that a similar instance we can look at? The Edward's case would appear to have some similarities to what occurred here. Would the FEC ruling in his case apply here too?Why was Michael Cohen investigated? Because the “Steele dossier” had him making secret trips to meet with Russians that never happened, so his business dealings got a thorough scrubbing and, in the process, he fell into the special counsel’s Manafort bin — the bin reserved for squeezing until the juice comes out. And now we are back to 1998 all over again, with presidents and presidential candidates covering up their alleged marital misdeeds and prosecutors trying to turn legal acts into illegal ones by inventing new crimes.
The plot to get President Trump out of office thickens, as Cohen obviously was his own mini-crime syndicate and decided that his betrayals of Trump meant he would be better served turning on his old boss to cut the best deal with prosecutors he could rather than holding out and getting the full Manafort treatment. That was clear the minute he hired attorney Lanny Davis, who doesn’t try cases and did past work for Hillary Clinton. Cohen had recorded his client, trying to entrap him, sold information about Trump (while acting as his lawyer) to corporations for millions of dollars, and didn’t pay taxes on millions.
The sweetener for the prosecutors, of course, was getting Cohen to plead guilty to campaign violations that were not campaign violations. Money paid to people who come out of the woodwork and shake down people under threat of revealing bad sexual stories are not legitimate campaign expenditures. They are personal expenditures. That is true for both candidates we like and candidates we don’t. Just imagine if candidates used campaign funds instead of their own money to pay folks like Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about affairs; they would get indicted for misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes and for tax evasion.
There appear to be two payments involved in this unusual plea — Cohen pleaded guilty to a campaign violation for having “coordinated” the American Media Inc. payment to Karen McDougal for her story, not for actually making the payment. So he is pleading guilty over a corporate contribution he did not make.
Think about this for a minute: Suppose ABC had paid Stormy Daniel for her story in coordination with Michael Avenatti or maybe even the Democratic National Committee’s law firm on the eve of the election; by this reasoning, if the purpose of this money paid, just before the election, would be to hurt Trump and help Clinton win, this payment would be a corporate political contribution. If using it not to get Trump would be a corporate contribution, then using it to get Trump also has to be a corporate contribution. That’s why neither are corporate contributions and this is a bogus approach to federal election law. (Note that none of the donors in the 2012 John Edwards case faced any legal issues and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruled their payments were not campaign contributions that had to be reported — facts that prosecutors tried to suppress at trial.)
Now, when it comes to Stormy Daniels, Cohen made a payment a few days before the election that Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani says was reimbursed. First, given that this payment was on Oct. 27, it would never have been reported before the election campaign and so, for all intents and purposes, was immaterial as it relates to any effect on the campaign. What’s clear in this plea deal is that, in exchange for overall leniency on his massive tax evasion, Cohen is pleading guilty to these other charges as an attempt to give prosecutors what they want — a Trump connection.
I think the last charge is undeniable. This started out as supposedly the President colluding with Russia to win the election. I think that has been completely dropped at this point. We have completely destroyed the faith of the public in the DOJ, FBI, and election process through all of this, but dammit we are going to get this guy for stealing an election from the people who have a birthright to these positions....
The usual procedures here would be for the FEC to investigate complaints and sort through these murky laws to determine if these kinds of payments are personal in nature or more properly classified as campaign expenditures. And, on the Daniels’ payment that was made and reimbursed by Trump, it is again a question of whether that was made for personal reasons (especially since they have been trying since 2011 to obtain agreement). Just because it would be helpful to the campaign does not convert it to a campaign expenditure. Think of a candidate with bad teeth who had dental work done to look better for the campaign; his campaign still could not pay for it because it’s a personal expenditure.
Contrast what is going on here with the treatment of the millions of dollars paid to a Democratic law firm which, in turn, paid out money to political research firm Fusion GPS and British ex-spy Christopher Steele without listing them on any campaign expenditure form — despite crystal-clear laws and regulations that the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds must be listed. This rule was even tightened recently. There is no question that hiring spies to do oppo research in Russia is a campaign expenditure, and yet, no prosecutorial raids have been sprung on the law firm, Fusion GPS or Steele. Reason: It does not “get” Trump.
So, Trump spends $130,000 to keep the lid on a personal story and the full weight of state prosecutors comes down on his lawyer, tossing attorney-client privilege to the wind. Democrats spend potentially millions on secret oppo research and no serious criminal investigation occurs.
You can add that to Obama's own FEC issues after he was elected. No impeachment there. He got fined:
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...g-for-hiding-donors-keeping-illegal-donations
Remember that the feds tried a similar strategy against Democrat John Edwards in the 2012 case and it failed. As Gregory Craig, a lawyer who worked both for President Clinton and John Edwards, said: “The government’s theory is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. It is novel and untested. There is no civil or criminal precedent for such a prosecution.” Hey, tried it there anyway and it failed.
And let’s not forget that President Clinton was entrapped into lying about his affairs and, although impeached, was acquitted by the Senate. The lesson was clear: We are not going to remove presidents for lying about who they had affairs with, nor even convict politicians on campaign-finance violations for these personal payments.
With Cohen pleading guilty, there will be no test of soundness of the prosecution theories here, and it is yet another example of the double standards of justice of one investigation that gave Clinton aides and principals every benefit of the doubt and another investigation that targeted Trump people until they found unrelated crimes to use as leverage. Prosecutors thought nothing of using the Logan Act against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and, now, obscure and unsettled elements of campaign finance law against Trump lawyer Cohen to manufacture crimes in what is a naked attempt to take Trump down and defeat democracy.
Donald Trump should do a better job of picking aides who pay their taxes — but he’s not responsible for their financial problems and crimes. These investigations, essentially based on an opposition-funded dossier, were never anything other than an attempt to push into a corner as many Trump aides and family members as possible and shake them down until they could get close enough to Trump to try to take him down. That’s why so many of his aides, lawyers, and actions in the campaign and in the White House have undergone hour-by-hour scrutiny to find anything that could be colored into a crime, leaving far behind the original Russia-collusion theory as the fake pretext it was. Paying for nondisclosure agreements for perfectly legal activities is not a crime, not a campaign contribution as commonly understood or ruled upon by the FEC — and squeezing guilty pleas out of vulnerable witnesses does not change those facts.
Oh and before we get the accusation about the political biases of who wrote this opinion.And let’s not forget that President Clinton was entrapped into lying about his affairs and, although impeached, was acquitted by the Senate. The lesson was clear: We are not going to remove presidents for lying about who they had affairs with, nor even convict politicians on campaign-finance violations for these personal payments.
With Cohen pleading guilty, there will be no test of soundness of the prosecution theories here, and it is yet another example of the double standards of justice of one investigation that gave Clinton aides and principals every benefit of the doubt and another investigation that targeted Trump people until they found unrelated crimes to use as leverage. Prosecutors thought nothing of using the Logan Act against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and, now, obscure and unsettled elements of campaign finance law against Trump lawyer Cohen to manufacture crimes in what is a naked attempt to take Trump down and defeat democracy.
Donald Trump should do a better job of picking aides who pay their taxes — but he’s not responsible for their financial problems and crimes. These investigations, essentially based on an opposition-funded dossier, were never anything other than an attempt to push into a corner as many Trump aides and family members as possible and shake them down until they could get close enough to Trump to try to take him down. That’s why so many of his aides, lawyers, and actions in the campaign and in the White House have undergone hour-by-hour scrutiny to find anything that could be colored into a crime, leaving far behind the original Russia-collusion theory as the fake pretext it was. Paying for nondisclosure agreements for perfectly legal activities is not a crime, not a campaign contribution as commonly understood or ruled upon by the FEC — and squeezing guilty pleas out of vulnerable witnesses does not change those facts.
Mark Penn is a managing partner of the Stagwell Group, a private equity firm specializing in marketing services companies, as well as chairman of the Harris Poll and author of “Microtrends Squared.” He served as pollster and adviser to President Clinton from 1995 to 2000, including during Clinton’s impeachment. You can follow him on Twitter @Mark_Penn.
So a few thoughts, precedent would seem to suggest that based on what we currently know, this amounts to basically nothing against Trump himself that we did not already know. He is a guy who cheats on his wife and he surrounded himself with unsavory and/or stupid individuals. The Manafort stuff was known by the FBI for years and was allowed to slide until they wanted to get Trump. All of this does appear to be an effort to pin anything they can on Trump. I hope the precedent being set by this prosecutorial team is worth what this means in the future. At this point, I hope they find something on Trump that is worth a damn so that this whole charade was actually worth the scorched earth it is leaving in its wake. This whole thing screams out for revenge when the levers of power turn, all you need is some paid off foreign stooge to write a memo to get the ball rolling.
This country is 5 years from being completely ungovernable.
I don’t support Trump. I agree with most of what he has done.
I will likely not support him in the primaries. Depending on who the Dems nominate, I may or may not support him in the general.
Oh. Thanks for clearing that up. The past two years have been a complete misunderstanding. Probably my lack of ability in grasping nuance. Apologies.
This is exactly what I feared. If faced with unimpeachable evidence of guilt of conspiracy, the Republicans will claim that the fix was in. Truth is not the truth. Party over country.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Party, are you kidding me. The day Trump leaves office the majority of the GOP will cheer.
Get rid of Trump, I am completely fine with Mike Pence. I am a "social con" at heart, I have been praying for our eventual imposition of the Christian Theocracy over you guys, you will find our reeducation camps to be happy places full of bad koolaid and cheap sandwich cookies.
I welcome the help we are receiving from our unknowing accomplices in establishing the U.C.S.A. Which camp would you like to be re-educated in? Are you more of a Catholic guy? Maybe you would prefer a Pentecostal camp, they get kind of wild. Don't worry, we are a big (revival) tent party. We got Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, Lutherans....we will find a spot for you.
While it is true none of Edwards' assistants were tried for campaign finance issues, Edwards was indicted on 6 counts though the jury handed down 1 not guilty and 5 counts were hung. So it isn't as if nothing happened in the Edwards' case. The big difference, in the Edwards' case the big dog could be indicted. This is not true in the Trump case. If it was a crime that Edwards' was indicted for, should it not be a crime today?
Yes, but what’s the relevance of that in the context of this matter? If anything, it demonstrates that Trump isn’t one of “them”.
Thanks. I doubt you care what I think, but it would be helpful to make clear you support Trump's policies but do not support Trump's ethics or personal life. Sometimes, when you come charging over the hill to protect his sorry ass with a post, that distinction isn't clear.
For the record Mark Penn is a long time idiot pollster...actually in the same vein as Dick Morris.
You talk a lot about precedent and promising payback for what you imagine are the current sins of...whom? Jim Comey, Robert Mueller, Jeff Sessions and Rosenstein. None of them are Democrats.
You should worry about the precedents Trump and the Trump supporters are setting. For the record those precedents amount to the ends justify the means; a hearty f*** you to anyone on the other side; law and accountability is for losers.
Trump colluded with Russia, and continues to collude with Russia both behind closed doors and in plain sight and, astonishingly, this merits a big ho hum from the Trumpies. They currently claim that while Trump may have colluded collusion isn't a crime; if it is a crime then the President is above the law; and if the President isn't above the law then whatabout something somebody else did once?
Seems to me that you ought to be worrying about the precedents Trump and the Repubs are currently setting and not about the behavior of Democrats who currently are exercising none of the levers of power. All the precedents Trump and his GOP enablers are setting now are absolutely terrible for the country.
And yet Mueller has yet to deliver **** all on that account. They are getting these guys on tax evasion and FEC violations.
Guilt of conspiracy of what Cortez? That Trump did not want his affair to get out? That is all we have so far. Trump ****ed around on Melania and he got his attorney to shut up the 2 pornstars with money. That is far, far, far away from Russia collusion. I already know that Trump is a crappy guy in his personal life but it takes more than that to push a guy out of office. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about his sexual dalliances and he still was not given the boot for what he did. Edward's did things similar to what Trump is being accused of and, while his political career was ended, he is still walking free.
Trump is a shitty person...duh. You cannot prosecute him for that though.
And if you do get him, whatever, I got Mike Pence in the wings. Then we can start all the Christian Taliban whining about him...and I am sure he is a racisty racist too.
First let’s drop collusion. I don’t want your team getting off on a technicality. If this is true, it’s conspiracy. That’s a real thing.
Let’s let the cards play out. The circumstantial evidence is all adding up. The Russia coincidences are substantial. Cohen can connect all the dots and his lawyer says he’s going to. How about we all have an open mind here and see what happens? Deal?
That he hasn’t delivered it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have it or won’t have it, at some point.
Cohen’s guilty plea has directly implicated Trump in a federal crime. Whether he can be indicted for that is another matter, but his tie to and participation in an illegal act is becoming very clear.
Last edited:
Illegal is illegal, no?
Furthermore, the argument of the article I posted was that this was not a campaign related issue to begin with.
That is not how it works.
For example:
https://www.politico.com/states/new...ibe-did-not-happen-despite-guilty-plea-216712
Few failure to come to a complete stop traffic stops are dead body in the trunk issues to begin with. Are you suggested that crimes discovered during the Trump investigation should be swept under the rug? That’s not very law and order of you.
Be patient. You'll start getting your wish when Manafort's second trial starts in September.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Did you forget about obstruction of justice? A summary of where things stand on collusion...
Mueller is looking into the meeting on June 9, 2016, in Trump Tower in New York City between three senior members of Trump's presidential campaign—Kushner, Manafort, and Donald Trump Jr.—and at least five other people, including Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, Rinat Akhmetshin, a lobbyist and former Soviet army officer who met senior Trump campaign aides, Ike Kaveladze, British publicist Rob Goldstone, and translator Anatoli Samochornov.[163][164] Goldstone had suggested the meeting to Trump Jr., and it was arranged in a series of emails later made public. In one email exchange of June 3, 2016, Goldstone wrote Trump Jr. that Aras Agalarov "offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father," adding that it was "very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" that he could send to Donald Trump's assistant Rhona Graff. Trump Jr. responded minutes later "Thanks Rob I appreciate that" and "if it's what you say I love it."[165] Trump Jr. initially told the press that the meeting was held to discuss adoptions of Russian children by Americans, but after contrary media reports he added that he agreed to the meeting with the understanding that he would receive information damaging to Hillary Clinton.[166] Mueller's team is investigating the emails and the meeting,[163] and whether President Trump later tried to hide the meeting's purpose.[167] On July 18, 2017, Kaveladze's attorney said that Mueller's investigators were seeking information about the Russian meeting in June 2016 from his client,[168] and on July 21, Mueller asked the White House to preserve all documents related to the Russian meeting.[169] It has been reported that Manafort had made notes during the Russian meeting.[170] CNN reported on July 26, 2018, that Michael Cohen was prepared to tell the Mueller investigation that Trump was aware of and approved of the June 9, 2016, meeting in advance, which Trump and Trump Jr. have repeatedly denied.[171]
CNN reported on March 23, 2017, that the FBI was examining "human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings" indicating that Trump associates may have coordinated with "suspected Russian operatives" to release information damaging to the Hillary Clinton campaign.[172]
By August 3, 2017, Mueller had impaneled a grand jury in the District of Columbia that issued subpoenas concerning the meeting.[173] The Financial Times reported on August 31 that Akhmetshin had given sworn testimony to Mueller's grand jury.[174]
CNN reported on September 19, 2017, that Manafort had been a target of a FISA wiretap both before and after the 2016 election, extending into early 2017. Some of the intercepted communications caused concerns among investigators that Manafort had solicited assistance from Russians for the campaign, although the evidence was reportedly inconclusive. The wiretaps began sometime after Manafort became a subject of an FBI investigation into his business practices in 2014. The Mueller investigation was provided details of these intercepts.[175]
Mueller is investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Republican activist Peter W. Smith, who stated that he tried to obtain Hillary Clinton's emails from Russian hackers, and that he was acting on behalf of Michael Flynn and other senior Trump campaign members. Trump campaign officials have denied that Smith was working with them.[176] In fall 2017, Mueller's team interviewed former Government Communications Headquarters cybersecurity researcher Matt Tait, who had been approached by Smith to verify the authenticity of emails allegedly hacked from Clinton's private email server.[177] Tait reportedly told House Intelligence Committee investigators in October 2017 that he believed Smith had ties to members of Trump's inner circle—including Flynn, Steve Bannon, and Kellyanne Conway—and may have been helping build opposition research for the Trump campaign.[178] Smith committed suicide in May 2017, several days after talking to The Wall Street Journal about his alleged efforts. Aged 81 and reportedly in failing health, he left a carefully prepared file of documents, including a statement police called a suicide note.[179] An attorney for Smith's estate said in October 2017 that some of Smith's documents had been turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee.[180]
In December 2017, it was reported that the Mueller investigation was examining whether the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee, who worked together on the digital arm of Trump's campaign, provided assistance to Russian trolls attempting to influence voters.[181][182] Yahoo News reported that Mueller's team is examining whether the joint RNC–Trump campaign data operation—which was directed on Trump's side by Brad Parscale and managed by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner—was related to the activities of Russian trolls and bots aimed at influencing the American electorate.[183] Also that month, the Democratic ranking members of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees asked their respective Republican chairmen to subpoena two of the data firms hired by Trump's campaign for documents related to Russia's election interference, including the firm headed by Parscale.[184][185] On February 27, 2018, Trump selected Parscale to serve as campaign manager on his 2020 reelection campaign.[186] NBC News reported on February 28, 2018, that Mueller's investigators are asking witnesses pointed questions about whether Trump was aware that Democratic emails had been stolen before that was publicly known, and whether he was involved in their strategic release. This is the first reported indication that Mueller's investigation is specifically examining whether Trump was personally involved in collusive activities.[187] Mueller's investigators have also asked about the relationship between Roger Stone and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and why Trump took policy positions favorable to Russia. Stone, a longtime Republican "dirty trickster" and Trump confidant[188] has repeatedly discussed his backchannel communications with Assange and claimed knowledge of forthcoming leaks from Wikileaks.[189] He also exchanged Twitter private messages with Guccifer 2.0, which American intelligence has connected to two Russian intelligence groups that cybersecurity analysts have concluded hacked Democratic National Committee emails.[190] Reuters reported on May 16, 2018, that Mueller's office had the prior week subpoenaed Stone's social media strategist, Jason Sullivan, to testify before a grand jury on May 18 and to provide documents, objects and electronically stored information.[191] Reuters reported the next day that John Kakanis, Stone's driver, accountant and operative, had also been subpoenaed.[192] Investigators have also focused on Trump's public comments in July 2016 asking Russia to find emails that were deleted from Hillary Clinton's private email server. At a news conference on July 27, 2016, days after WikiLeaks began publishing the Democratic National Committee emails, Trump said, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."[193] The July 13, 2018 indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents[131] described: "...on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign."[194]
After a "testy March 5 meeting, Mueller's team agreed to provide the president's lawyers with more specific information about the subjects that prosecutors wished to discuss with the president." Then Jay Sekulow "compiled a list of 49 questions that the team believed the president would be asked.... The New York Times first reported the existence of the list."[195]
On April 30, 2018, The New York Times published a list of interview questions for Trump that the Mueller investigation had provided to the president's attorneys. The list was provided to The Times by an individual outside Trump's legal team. Among the questions was, "What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?" Before this disclosure, there had been no publicly available information indicating any such outreach. The Times noted that the questions were not quoted verbatim and in some cases were condensed.[196]
The New York Times reported on May 15, 2018, that Trump campaign policy aide and later White House Deputy Cabinet Secretary John Mashburn testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2018 that he recalled receiving an email from George Papadopoulos in the first half of 2016 indicating that the Russian government had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Before this report, there had been no publicly available information indicating that Papadopoulos had informed anyone on the Trump campaign about such matters. Despite an extensive search for the purported email by various investigators, it has not been located.[197] A court document[198] Mueller's office filed in association with Papadopoulos's guilty plea included verbatim quotes from various emails Papadopoulos had sent or received, but the Mashburn email was not referenced in that document.
CNN reported on March 23, 2017, that the FBI was examining "human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings" indicating that Trump associates may have coordinated with "suspected Russian operatives" to release information damaging to the Hillary Clinton campaign.[172]
By August 3, 2017, Mueller had impaneled a grand jury in the District of Columbia that issued subpoenas concerning the meeting.[173] The Financial Times reported on August 31 that Akhmetshin had given sworn testimony to Mueller's grand jury.[174]
CNN reported on September 19, 2017, that Manafort had been a target of a FISA wiretap both before and after the 2016 election, extending into early 2017. Some of the intercepted communications caused concerns among investigators that Manafort had solicited assistance from Russians for the campaign, although the evidence was reportedly inconclusive. The wiretaps began sometime after Manafort became a subject of an FBI investigation into his business practices in 2014. The Mueller investigation was provided details of these intercepts.[175]
Mueller is investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Republican activist Peter W. Smith, who stated that he tried to obtain Hillary Clinton's emails from Russian hackers, and that he was acting on behalf of Michael Flynn and other senior Trump campaign members. Trump campaign officials have denied that Smith was working with them.[176] In fall 2017, Mueller's team interviewed former Government Communications Headquarters cybersecurity researcher Matt Tait, who had been approached by Smith to verify the authenticity of emails allegedly hacked from Clinton's private email server.[177] Tait reportedly told House Intelligence Committee investigators in October 2017 that he believed Smith had ties to members of Trump's inner circle—including Flynn, Steve Bannon, and Kellyanne Conway—and may have been helping build opposition research for the Trump campaign.[178] Smith committed suicide in May 2017, several days after talking to The Wall Street Journal about his alleged efforts. Aged 81 and reportedly in failing health, he left a carefully prepared file of documents, including a statement police called a suicide note.[179] An attorney for Smith's estate said in October 2017 that some of Smith's documents had been turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee.[180]
In December 2017, it was reported that the Mueller investigation was examining whether the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee, who worked together on the digital arm of Trump's campaign, provided assistance to Russian trolls attempting to influence voters.[181][182] Yahoo News reported that Mueller's team is examining whether the joint RNC–Trump campaign data operation—which was directed on Trump's side by Brad Parscale and managed by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner—was related to the activities of Russian trolls and bots aimed at influencing the American electorate.[183] Also that month, the Democratic ranking members of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees asked their respective Republican chairmen to subpoena two of the data firms hired by Trump's campaign for documents related to Russia's election interference, including the firm headed by Parscale.[184][185] On February 27, 2018, Trump selected Parscale to serve as campaign manager on his 2020 reelection campaign.[186] NBC News reported on February 28, 2018, that Mueller's investigators are asking witnesses pointed questions about whether Trump was aware that Democratic emails had been stolen before that was publicly known, and whether he was involved in their strategic release. This is the first reported indication that Mueller's investigation is specifically examining whether Trump was personally involved in collusive activities.[187] Mueller's investigators have also asked about the relationship between Roger Stone and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and why Trump took policy positions favorable to Russia. Stone, a longtime Republican "dirty trickster" and Trump confidant[188] has repeatedly discussed his backchannel communications with Assange and claimed knowledge of forthcoming leaks from Wikileaks.[189] He also exchanged Twitter private messages with Guccifer 2.0, which American intelligence has connected to two Russian intelligence groups that cybersecurity analysts have concluded hacked Democratic National Committee emails.[190] Reuters reported on May 16, 2018, that Mueller's office had the prior week subpoenaed Stone's social media strategist, Jason Sullivan, to testify before a grand jury on May 18 and to provide documents, objects and electronically stored information.[191] Reuters reported the next day that John Kakanis, Stone's driver, accountant and operative, had also been subpoenaed.[192] Investigators have also focused on Trump's public comments in July 2016 asking Russia to find emails that were deleted from Hillary Clinton's private email server. At a news conference on July 27, 2016, days after WikiLeaks began publishing the Democratic National Committee emails, Trump said, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."[193] The July 13, 2018 indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents[131] described: "...on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign."[194]
After a "testy March 5 meeting, Mueller's team agreed to provide the president's lawyers with more specific information about the subjects that prosecutors wished to discuss with the president." Then Jay Sekulow "compiled a list of 49 questions that the team believed the president would be asked.... The New York Times first reported the existence of the list."[195]
On April 30, 2018, The New York Times published a list of interview questions for Trump that the Mueller investigation had provided to the president's attorneys. The list was provided to The Times by an individual outside Trump's legal team. Among the questions was, "What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?" Before this disclosure, there had been no publicly available information indicating any such outreach. The Times noted that the questions were not quoted verbatim and in some cases were condensed.[196]
The New York Times reported on May 15, 2018, that Trump campaign policy aide and later White House Deputy Cabinet Secretary John Mashburn testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2018 that he recalled receiving an email from George Papadopoulos in the first half of 2016 indicating that the Russian government had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Before this report, there had been no publicly available information indicating that Papadopoulos had informed anyone on the Trump campaign about such matters. Despite an extensive search for the purported email by various investigators, it has not been located.[197] A court document[198] Mueller's office filed in association with Papadopoulos's guilty plea included verbatim quotes from various emails Papadopoulos had sent or received, but the Mashburn email was not referenced in that document.
There is a mistake in the first sentence so I stopped reading after that. Where is the proof that he did NOT meet with Russians? I've seen allegations that he did, but certainly no proof that he didn't. And you clearly don't understand the background of what got the ball rolling.
Oh my. Are you another one of those Mueller doesn't have anything because you don't know what he has? I think you're better than this. We know he has obstruction. We know he has intent and likely collision and conspiracy. I'd say it's pretty likely he has more than that. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean he doesn't have it.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Maybe I’ve seen too many movies and I’m happy to admit I have zero legal or investigative experience. But, isn’t this exactly what he should do? “This” being hammering these career criminals on their crimes (which should be prosecuted by the way - it almost seems like you think these guys should get a pass on white collar crimes?) and let these underlings plea out to get information on the real scope of the larger investigation?
So many Republicans who don’t support Trump are all too quick to undermine Mueller, his investigation, the intel community and our courts. This is always one sided in favor the president they purportedly don’t support. Yet they are ever so skeptical of any report or evidence of his wrongdoing. It’s weird right?
So Mueller coerced Cohen to admit guilt to something wasn't a crime, only payin off a piece of ash like he'd done several times before running for office. I think their can be a history of this proven showing that it wasn't a campaign contribution. (unless there's a tape of the idiot saying "do thi sfor the campaign).
No, by all means, get Manafort. The thing I need explained is that he did these things going back over a decade and the FBI knew about it long before he was associated with Trump. It only became an issue after Trump. (He was interviewed in 2013 and 2014 by the FBI).
The government is selective in who they go after, Manafort lost his traditional GOP shield when he joined Team Trump. He should have stuck with the Bob Dole types and he'd still be a free man today.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
And maybe his boss shouldn’t have told russia to get HRC’s emails. And maybe his boss shouldn’t have said the public lost faith in the FBI.
But I’m with you. It’s strange.
Last edited by a moderator:
Support is such a juvenile black and white position. I support what Trump is doing w.r.t. regulations and the economy. I do not support him screwing around on Melania. I support his attempt to bring China in line with all of their economic shenanigans and intellectual thievery. I am supportive of his point that NATO needs to be a more equal partnership. I do not support the method he chooses to deliver that message. I support his continued pressure on Russia through sanctions and the sale of lethal arms to Ukraine, I do not support his obsequious behavior in the summit with Putin. I support his judicial picks.
I can support what he is doing (in some cases) and not what he is doing in others. I weigh the positives with him greater than the positives with putting a Democrat in office. If my choice is a party pushing more and more for socialism (and other things I am not willing to argue with you about) and a guy who does 60% of what I would like done but is a complete asshole and boor, I choose option B 100% of the time.
I drop my support of the boor the minute I have an alternative that more closely aligns to my wants. The drunken hag that the Democrats ran was not that. The further tilt of that party toward socialism is basically ensuring they will not be getting my vote anytime in the near future. Perhaps the rest of the GOP will get its shit together enough to run a more polished candidate who actually speaks to the things its voters really care about (and actually acts on it.)
Trump can be a complete idiot who surrounds himself with questionable people, no doubt. But this just has political hit job written all over it. Mueller does not need an indictment of Trump to get what he wants. He just needs to keep the shit flying until 2020.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I was with you on last post. I’m not with you on this one. He continually has surrounded himself with both career criminals and total boneheads that have no business stepping foot in the White House. This needs to be undone.
This is not a hit job. I’m convinced Mueller knows that Trump either willfully or unwittingly (because he’s a moron) conspired with Russia and he’s gathering up all the pawns he can before finishing his investigation and releasing his findings.
Were I a trump fan, which I am not, I’d be ready to move on from him given that I got my justices (and half-assed tax reform) and start to figure out how to set Pence up for success and figure out how to get the never Trump conservatives like me to vote GOP in the midterms.
