Luxury-Agency
Montreal Escorts

The Trump Crime Family

Sol Tee Nutz

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2012
7,675
1,523
113
Look behind you.
Yeah, have no idea if a member is from the US or Canada. Illegals are illegals, the ones fleeing the US into Canada are probably parasites who know the money is ending or fear getting caught for illegal activities. The immigrants who want to join a country and become a US or Canadian citizen and work for what they get are always welcome. I understand in the US many are fleeing into the US and do want to work but are getting fucked over by " business " people who pay them peanuts, not right but when you are an illegal you do not have much choice. Do not think that happens in Canada much but we are getting the dregs who will be a burden on us, and they were a burden in the US.
Just my opinion.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
From illegal immigrants to college girl killer... that was kinda quick btw, hum.

It's actually all part of our political debate right now........and it is Trump's signature issue.

I know it might be disappointing, but we don't always discuss whether to put Trump in jail on this thread.
 

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
860
256
83
Valcazar, you posted a very intelligent rebuttal.

Thank you.

I will do my best not to make this a line by line quote, since it seems that is something you aren't fond of.

To catch up and answer. Not a lawyer, but lawyer-adjacent enough to have learned to pay attention to some of the details.

--You are correct that the "You know this how, exactly?" line was a comment that none of us are there and so none of us should be too confident about what Mueller and others do or do not have. Mueller has been very good about not leaking, so things really are "best guess" at most.

-- I see your logic on Flynn or Papadopoulous, but disagree about the connection to how things are happening with Manafort and Cohen. First of all, Mueller handed Cohen off to someone else (SDNY). That's something to keep in mind, when Mueller uncovers things that don't look directly linked to the original mandate, he hands those crimes off to other courts. But even if he was still doing Cohen, I don't think info from anyone precludes him slowly moving up the chain. This all feels like RICO or any other crime family investigation. You don't jump the line, you just keep moving through everyone and building the case against the higher ups. Especially in this case, where Mueller seems to agree that Trump can't be indicted while sitting, the incentives are to just keep amassing evidence on Trump and pursuing cases on everyone else around him to make the report as airtight and complete as possible. I will admit to being curious about what is going on with Flynn. The fact the sentencing keeps getting bumped is mysterious and there are too many possible explanations to confidently speculate.

I disagree about the Russians because the interference in the elections is directly in his mandate. Yes, there is very little Mueller can do in terms of pushing the case forward, but those indictments seem to be about making sure certain elements of the evidence are in the public record and (as Clara says) to keep people paying attention and show that this is still moving forward. (Also, there is the very basic idea of those cases being laid out strictly so that if any evidence later is linked to those cases and those people, it is already established that the Russians in question are bad actors concerning the election.) I'll give you "indirect", but don't think "sideshow" is correct.

Concerning the CNN story you linked to point out you think the sentencing is over the top, this appears to be all about how our prior biases and how you read the situation. I read that article, and I note that Popadopolous was up on 5 years of charges, they cut a cooperation deal. The feds are unimpressed with his cooperation level (especially his wife's public appearances it seems), and so they said "yes, we only left him with one crime, but we aren't waving sentencing for that, he should do 1-6 months." They were allowed to recommend no time, they chose not to. But they didn't go back and try to force the 5 year, and they didn't say "he absolutely should do the max". So in the end, his plea got him from up to 5 years to 6 months or less. You read it as him cutting a deal and them insisting on nailing him anyway. We will probably never agree because our prior assumptions about motivations of the Mueller team are different.

I agree with both you and Clara (Thank you Clara, for the explanation of your position) that the release of information is political in that it is being used to make targets nervous, fight back on the news cycle, and make sure people note that the probe isn't just hanging around doing nothing.

As for the FBI informant /British professor, it is a bit of a mystery and I don't think we have enough to really know here. (Honestly, I'm not convinced the guy whose name was leaked was actually the informant, since the whole incident about revealing the name was very odd.) Again, this is probably a question of priors and who we give good faith to. Sending someone in to talk to people after already being tipped off that there may be funny business involved is pretty normal. If he met with some people, asked how things were going, and reported back about some suspicious behavior, that's pretty normal. If he was suggesting to reach out to the Russians, much more of a problem. I know that reporting linked him to talking to Popadopolous and Page - both of whom were already linked to the Russians. Did he stay longer? Did he ever have a position in the campaign other than "well connected Republican guy asking if he can help"? I'm not sure we ever got the full story there. But unless we suspect he seeded the Russian email stuff. it doesn't seem to matter much. Do we have reason to suspect that? I think no, because there seems to be fair evidence the Trump campaign was more than happy to cruise for help and the Russians were already working. Again, how you interpret that will depend on previous beliefs about the people involved.
 

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
860
256
83
I would love for Mueller to announce some major Trump impropriety with the Russians so we can get this damn drama over.

Then we can get back to rounding up illegal immigrants crossing our border and dropping them into the Niagara Peninsula and Southern Quebec. :thumb:

He won't, since even once he files the report, it will be classified until Congress unclassifies it. He might release more major "Russians did X", but he won't release anything directly on Trump other than through the report, I think. I haven't seen any reason to believe he doesn't agree you can't indict a sitting president, so he won't release anything directly if it is Trump-focused.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
STN,
Yes of course, this Toronto Sun commentary is accurate. The U.S. Intelligence community can be completely off-base, yet people/politicians selectively rely on their expertise and opinion. The Iraq War is one of the greatest unnecessary* tragedies in American history. Perhaps not as tragic as Vietnam, but certainly unnecessary. At first when so many ex-Intelligence people signed that letter, I was taken aback. When I heard their comments I became suspicious of a fraternity that has a self-interest in selling their expertise and contacts after they leave government.

Identity politics as practiced in the U.S. is a convoluted knot. You can see evidence of the hypocrisy in almost every area that the Left throws down the identity card. Unfortunately, I think casual observers in Canada and Europe think the U.S. is a terrible place for different, marginalized groups. First, we have very large social programs that target the poor and underprivileged groups. Lastly, in a country as large and diverse as the U.S. it's very easy for politicians to promote and exploit our differences. The craziness of promoting illegal immigration case and point. American citizens of Latin heritage support closing the border in great numbers, but they are told efforts to close he border and fight illegal immigration is anti-hispanic.

* Fighting Hitler, Japan and the Civil War were all huge tragedies, but necessary at that time in history.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
Valcazar,

There is a reason Trump supporters are so resolute. They believe the majority of American media mislead people. They beat the drum last week that the law was closing in on Trump. Yes, Cohen pleaded to some personal legal violations unrelated to Trump, but the entire campaign finance violations are murky at best and precedence is not on the side of prosecutors. It's a strange and very political thing for prosecutors to get Cohen to cop a plea for possible non-crimes related to campaign finance. By de facto argument, one now could claim that the President violated campaign finance laws. In this case as it is currently handled, Trump won't be able to defend himself. Very clever, don't ya think?

You repeatedly mention RICO investigation. I concur with your assessment. However barring specific proof of Russian collusion, do you think it's appropriate that two legal jurisdictions should be tag-teaming a newly elected President who has been in the public eye for over thirty years under RICO? Where was this RICO investigation in the past? Don't mistaken this thread title "Trump Crime Family" as anything, but tongue in cheek. The Trump's are not N.Y.C.'s Gambino family.

You are probably aware that unless there was some proven quid pro quo, there is likely nothing illegal about the Trump campaign being aware the Russians or Wikileaks had the emails. Across on the Democratic side, we already have evidence that Clinton surrogates paid Russians for falsified dirt on Trump. Perhaps we need to change the campaign laws and dealing with foreign actors, but as it stands today I don't know what law was violated.
 

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
860
256
83
No comment on the Toronto Sun article. It's an opinion article, people have opinions. **shrug**

"Where was this RICO investigation in the past? Don't mistaken this thread title "Trump Crime Family" as anything, but tongue in cheek. The Trump's are not N.Y.C.'s Gambino family."

Right, and this is the issue where we split. Your argument here is " white collar crime is underprosecuted, so the fact he has been a criminal for years but in the right field means he shouldn't be prosecuted". Seriously, no one who has ever looked into the Trump organization has doubted they have broken the law continuously for years. (I don't think there is a single person from New York when he was just a tabloid sensation who didn't already know his business was criminal.) But rich white collar crime doesn't get prosecuted until some other reason sets it off, because our system is focused on the wrong things. In this case, he became President, which is a guarantee of additional scrutiny. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that normally, he would have gotten away with his crimes, so he shouldn't be prosecuted once they've bothered to investigate. (Not partisan on this, btw, white collar crime needs to be cracked down on severely. That no bankers went to jail post 2008 was a travesty.)

"You are probably aware that unless there was some proven quid pro quo, there is likely nothing illegal about the Trump campaign being aware the Russians or Wikileaks had the emails. "

Absolutely. This is the point. That he colluded isn't even denied by Trump anymore. (Well, he says "no collusion" but he also has admitted to the meetings and accepting the help.) The question is did any of it rise to illegal, and if it did so, is it prosecutable.

It may not be. The laws aren't as simple as "anyone foreign is illegal". It is about donations and contributions. Otherwise if you bought computers from a supplier that has workers outside the US would violate the law. Despite what Trump and his campaign has already admitted to, it might not actually reach the level of illegal.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
First and most importantly, I'm not sure Trump or his campaign has ever said they accepted the Russians help. I believe meetings was actually one short meeting.

Starting an investigation of a sitting, elected President using RICO tactics is a dangerous precedence. It is totally necessary to prosecute white collar crime, but it is appropriate before and after Trump's administration. Is it reasonable to launch a RICO-style investigation into a iconoclastic, newcomer elected to office solely with innuendo and a handful of sand as the initial evidence? (We have the inconvenient matter of that crazy, falsified dossier that was erroneously floated around the FBI and the Justice Dept. that is itself being investigated.) Remember Mueller doesn't seem to be able to prove collusion.

Those opposed to Trump don't seem willing to admit how political this investigation is. I thought the Ken Starr Special Counsel investigating Bill Clinton was ridiculous. I don't believe they used RICO tactics to squeeze Bill Clinton's associates. Then you have the terrible example of the FBI investigation into Hillary. It was very clever of the FBI leadership to grant Clinton associates immunity essentially for nothing in return. It essentially cordoned off her closest associates from the threat of prosecution. That is quite a contrast to the Trump investigation.

I hear what you are saying. If you are angry about bankers and bank fraud leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, that's totally warranted, but it's an entirely separate issue. I don't want politically-motivated bureaucrats selectively prosecuting those elected candidates they hold in contempt.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
Why didn't you say had a photo of Flynn with Putin? It is a dark room. It's hard to make out the two. But yes, I do believe if you look closely enough that is General Flynn and Vladimir Putin sitting next to each other. :kiss:
I don't think they discussed the emails because they had yet to be stolen, but I'm sure Putin assured Flynn you bring us Trump and we will bring the dirt. By now though, the Russians probably already figured out that Podesta's password was "p-a-s-s-w-o-r-d".:crazy:

London bookies had the odds of Trump winning at 25 to 1 in late 2015 when the meeting occurred. Can you imagine how many rubles Putin pulled in on that bet? Wow! $$$$$
:whoo:
What do they say..........a picture is worth a thousand witnesses. In this case, maybe 100 million witnesses. Why is the Special Counsel spending $20 million and running? Let's just bring on the impeachment!!!

You know Jill Stein was also at that table. You know her part in the nefarious plot to defeat Clinton. The Green party ran her as a candidate like they ran a candidate for over two decades. The Russians correctly plotted that Green voters were too stupid to know that their vote would only take away a vote that would otherwise be certainly going to Hillary Clinton. Stein went on to siphon enough votes to throw Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin into the Trump column.
:hippie:
Then there is the matter of Flynn's phone calls to Russian Ambassador Kislyak. So stupid for a top intelligence guy to talk about conspiracy and intrigue on a Russian embassy phone line that he should have known was tapped by American intelligence. :doh: At least wait a few weeks and help the Obama team move their boxes into the truck before making official "unofficial" calls.

I wanted to post a photo here of Bill Clinton hanging with Vladimir Putin while Hillary was Secretary of State and during the process to sell American uranium to Russia, but the photos were too numerous.
 

jalimon

I am addicted member
Dec 28, 2015
6,251
166
63
Jalimon, are you mad about that U.S.-Mexican trade deal? If it brings your Chrystia Freeland down to the U.S. in a hurry, we'll take that curvy MILF. She's got quite a presence in the Lower House.

What deal? They got together for like 2 hours and came out with a new deal that took like 4 years to write 25 years ago?? They got together. Agreed that they both were and deep shit and needed something to look good. Got the tequila out. Which trump mixed in his Diet Pepsi. After a few drink they both agreed they can go publicly about it. Both are happy campers especially since nothing changed so the "new deal" will never be as bad as the previous one ;)

Cheers,
 

Sol Tee Nutz

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2012
7,675
1,523
113
Look behind you.
Logic would tell us if that's all it is, Canada would have jumped on board months ago.

Canada got pushed out because Justine was two faced when Trump left a summit early and because Justine wanted to bring gender into the NAFTA taks.
 

jalimon

I am addicted member
Dec 28, 2015
6,251
166
63
Trump did not needed good news a month ago. Well not as much as now.

Mexico changed president recently, even if not yet in office it made a big impact as Trump despised current president as much as he hates Trudeau. He needed victory so made the mexico deal look like one. Will he need one with Canada or he will use his personal greed against Trudeau a little further??

Trump probably hates Trudeau because Trudeau is better looking then his own son.

Cheers,
 

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
860
256
83
First and most importantly, I'm not sure Trump or his campaign has ever said they accepted the Russians help. I believe meetings was actually one short meeting.

It's very ambiguous. I should clarify, though. I was referring specifically the "I love it" part of the response from Jr, and Sr's "If you're listening". But they have continuously insisted it was a one shot because it became about adoption. That doesn't seem to hold up to a lot of scrutiny, since there were definitely attempts to set up a follow up according to the emails released, and there was all that discussion of a back channel, and there was definitely some reporting along the lines of "we can talk about this after we win". But you are right in that while I think that is a strong preponderance of evidence, I can accept there is still some plausible deniability on the topic.

I remain confused as to why you think that the dossier was the source of the investigation (let alone the sole core piece of evidence) or why you think the dossier is exceptionally flimsy. Neither of those things appear to be true.
"Mueller doesn't seem able to prove collusion" is something of a smokescreen. There is NO crime called "collusion". It isn't a legal term. This has resulted in a lot of fuzzy thinking about anything he does prove "not being collusion". That's word games.
Regardless, any of the major conspiracy charges, should they be coming, will be late in the game. We are still fairly early in the game. I can't think of a major investigation into a political figure in my lifetime that didn't go on for quite a bit longer than this. I don't think we can say much about what Mueller can or cannot prove right now.

Where we split is pretty obviously on the idea that this investigation is based purely on contempt and a desire to find something. Having lived through decades of that with the Clintons, where the motivation seemed to be "We know they are guilty of *something*, we just need to find out what", this doesn't read that way at all. Everything has been rather specific and developed with further evidence so far. It's all been quite sober. (Not to say there hasn't been a generous sprinkling of wackadoodle mixed in on all sides, because in the US there will *always* be at least a dash of wackadoodle.)

But in the end, you are working from the assumption the whole investigation is suspect from the start, and I am working from the assumption it is a valid investigation. What that does mean is that things falling down in the middle zone of interpretation are likely to be a split decision on our part. I hope we end up in the situation we saw with Manafort, where that juror explained that despite supporting Trump and wanting to find a reason for Manafort not to be guilty, the evidence was the evidence and she had to say he was guilty. I don't know if we are going to get it in either direction.



Those opposed to Trump don't seem willing to admit how political this investigation is. I thought the Ken Starr Special Counsel investigating Bill Clinton was ridiculous. I don't believe they used RICO tactics to squeeze Bill Clinton's associates. Then you have the terrible example of the FBI investigation into Hillary. It was very clever of the FBI leadership to grant Clinton associates immunity essentially for nothing in return. It essentially cordoned off her closest associates from the threat of prosecution. That is quite a contrast to the Trump investigation.

I hear what you are saying. If you are angry about bankers and bank fraud leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, that's totally warranted, but it's an entirely separate issue. I don't want politically-motivated bureaucrats selectively prosecuting those elected candidates they hold in contempt.[/QUOTE]
 

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
860
256
83
@Clara Versailles - regarding Flynn.
Yes, I think his link is mostly regarding the Saudi/Russian/Israel/Syria thing. The meeting in the Seychelles that Erik Prince lied about. Remember that Flynn was trying to arrange a deal with Russia on Syria within 24 hours of the election win, according to reports.

I don't think we know what's up with the sentencing being pushed back though. Four delays seems odd, regardless of what you think the underlying legal threat is.

Can anyone find a president of any country in history that look so much "fuck you all" as Trump?

I still think Mussolini takes it.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts