Montreal Escorts

The Trump Crime Family

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,559
28
48
49
Where I belong.
...the campaign finance violation plea with Cohen is just about embarrassment.
Please then explain the cooperations agreements of both Pecker and Weisselberg?

Oh and while you're at it, you might want to explain the cooperation of Kelly, Cohen and god only knows how many others who might not have committed multiple felonies like, for example, the Trumps and Kushner. (I assume that Barron and Tiffany have nothing to fear though, who knows, I might be wrong.)

(Sorry, hate to confuse you with the facts.) By the way, I'd give you the list of Trump appointees who have departed the White House under a cloud but I don't have all day.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
Please then explain the cooperations agreements of both Pecker and Weisselberg?
......................................

(Sorry, hate to confuse you with the facts.) By the way, I'd give you the list of Trump appointees who have departed the White House under a cloud but I don't have all day.

Rational people should only deal with what the Special Counsel has publicly put on the table. Engaging in kitchen sink attacks on the Trumps based on conjecture is just silly and self-indulgent. I believe most of us think that's fair.

From what I understand, Pecker and Weisselberg were granted immunity to speak candidly with the Special Counsel. By the way, Comey handed Clinton's staff immunity like he was handing out flyers on the corner. Interesting quote from Federal Judge who thought Mills committed perjury even with immunity.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...aide-cheryl-mills-was-granted-immunity-by-doj

Flynn and Corsi are fighting back at the Special Counsel for overstepping proper prosecutorial boundaries. So we now are hearing about over-aggressive tactics to try to pressure Trump's cohorts to compose dirt on the President. Don't trust Flynn or conservative media. Trust the Federal Judge who has questioned the Flynn indictment.

As far as Administration members resigning "under a cloud", most, if not all, are Republican operatives who aren't necessarily Trump acolytes. Also, being controversial isn't a crime. I assure you crimes would have been prosecuted.

Rumple, I am not sure you realize that we are all engaged with infotainment when we watch or read the news. Whether everyone will admit that the media is 80% liberal or not, I'm fairly sure most of us know what major outlets offer adulterated, biased news and commentary.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
If you were going to bet on Trump winding up in jail, you should have made the bet long ago. At this point, the bookies in London are giving no better than even money.

Per Ladbroke's, the current odds are 7-4 that Trump will be impeached. 1-3 to serve full first term.

I can't find a betting line on "jail" which suggests that the odds are a media creation. Anyone who gambles on sports knows that the betting lines only matter when bettors start putting up their money where their mouths are.

The odds above suggest that you and others are getting out over your skis on all this Trump removal rhetoric.
 

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
859
256
83
Wow, this has exploded a bit. :)

I should clarify my earlier "Russia isn't involved in the Cohen stuff". It sort of is in that the only charge from Mueller is about lying about the Trump Tower Moscow deal, but that is sort of indirect and Mueller suggested it wasn't worth adding time to the time he was already going to do for his other crimes, so I'm sort of letting it slide.

@rumpleforskin and sambuca - Yes, the Clintons underwent years of investigation by an independent counsel (which is what it was called back then). That isn't including all the other "let's investigate Clinton" things that have been done since. So sambuca's statement that they haven't undergone this sort of scrutiny is simply wrong. That he wants an investigation of the Podestas seems to mean he thinks those earlier ones don't count and he means the Clintons and their associates haven't undergone one recently, perhaps. Of course, he also then switched immediately to the idea those were just partisan witch hunts, which seems to indicate he is just projecting. The GOP systematically makes up fake scandals, so therefore that is what the Democrats must be doing. Also specifically revenge for Clinton. And to embarass Trump, which is why the investigation was kept secret during the election, I guess.

@sambuca - "Let's not get lost in the weeds." What weeds? You expressed confusion at how they could make the case it was a crime, and I pointed out they already explained their reasoning, all you have to do is go and read it. Cohen admitted they were for the campaign. That's now a legal fact in the record. The question is can Trump make the case they aren't? You are 100% right in that it isn't a done deal. But the idea that it is some kind of mystery how the SDNY would even make that case is laughable. They explain their reasoning clearly in the sentencing recommendation.

"By the way, Cohen is going to jail for three years for tax evasion and maybe lying to Congress not for campaign finance violations. "
This is just wrong. Again, read the sentencing recommendations and the judge's decision. The only thing he *isn't* going to jail for is the lying to congress (in that Mueller said it isn't worth adding additional time for that given the other charges and his help.) Campaign violations that are criminal and not civil (such as these) carry a prison sentence of up to 5 years. They are explicitly grouped in the section of crimes that were used to determine sentencing. None of this is hidden, all these documents have been made public.

You yourself say that rational people should only deal with what the Special Counsel has publicly put on the table, which is why I keep directing you to the public filings.

(Sorry, who is the federal judge who has questioned the Flynn indictment? A search is only pulling up recent articles about his sentencing memo and I don't see anything there. Would like to read this if possible.)

For the record, I agree with Sambuca and Sol Tee Nutz that I find it *extremely* unlikely that Trump will do jail time for the criminal violations of the campaign finance laws Cohen has pled guilty to. If he loses in 2020, I doubt they will spend resources prosecuting a 74-year old man for that. (Probably 75 by the time sentencing happens.)
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,559
28
48
49
Where I belong.

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,559
28
48
49
Where I belong.
Rumple, I am not sure you realize that we are all engaged with infotainment when we watch or read the news. Whether everyone will admit that the media is 80% liberal or not, I'm fairly sure most of us know what major outlets offer adulterated, biased news and commentary.
I'm glad that you're aware of that. As for me, unlike you, I don't watch Fox. I get my news from the Times, Post, and Guardian. These are all legit news sources. You should try them sometime.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,559
28
48
49
Where I belong.
For the record, I agree with Sambuca and Sol Tee Nutz that I find it *extremely* unlikely that Trump will do jail time for the criminal violations of the campaign finance laws Cohen has pled guilty to. If he loses in 2020, I doubt they will spend resources prosecuting a 74-year old man for that. (Probably 75 by the time sentencing happens.)
Hey, they put an 85 year old Whitey Bulger away. Trump's crimes are serious enough that there's no way they can be ignored. While a many decade old interpretation by the justice department says that a sitting president can't be indicted, there's certainly the possibility that that will be revisited. None other than Lawrence Tribe thinks it's a faulty interpretation.

And of course, he certainly can be indicted by the crimes committed that are violations of state law...and there are certainly many of them.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
I'm glad that you're aware of that. As for me, unlike you, I don't watch Fox. I get my news from the Times, Post, and Guardian. These are all legit news sources. You should try them sometime.

I'm sorry but these are liberal media outlets. Whether one thinks they have been fair to Trump or not, how these outlets handled the Christine Blasey testimony is a good litmus test. I seem to remember the Times was very sympathetic towards CBF and very much opposed to Kavanaugh. (Let's not debate CBF's testimony here. There's a separate discussion under MeToo.)

When Trump is taken out of the discussion, the Forum membership is far more rational and probably a bit more conservative. I personally find the Wall Street Journal as a good right of center news source that isn't over the top.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
............sambuca - Yes, the Clintons underwent years of investigation by an independent counsel (which is what it was called back then). That isn't including all the other "let's investigate Clinton" things that have been done since. So sambuca's statement that they haven't undergone this sort of scrutiny is simply wrong. That he wants an investigation of the Podestas seems to mean he thinks those earlier ones don't count and he means the Clintons and their associates haven't undergone one recently, perhaps. Of course, he also then switched immediately to the idea those were just partisan witch hunts, which seems to indicate he is just projecting. The GOP systematically makes up fake scandals, so therefore that is what the Democrats must be doing. Also specifically revenge for Clinton. And to embarass Trump, which is why the investigation was kept secret during the election, I guess.

@sambuca - "Let's not get lost in the weeds." What weeds? You expressed confusion at how they could make the case it was a crime, and I pointed out they already explained their reasoning, all you have to do is go and read it. Cohen admitted they were for the campaign. That's now a legal fact in the record. The question is can Trump make the case they aren't? You are 100% right in that it isn't a done deal. But the idea that it is some kind of mystery how the SDNY would even make that case is laughable. They explain their reasoning clearly in the sentencing recommendation.

"By the way, Cohen is going to jail for three years for tax evasion and maybe lying to Congress not for campaign finance violations. "
This is just wrong. Again, read the sentencing recommendations and the judge's decision. The only thing he *isn't* going to jail for is the lying to congress (in that Mueller said it isn't worth adding additional time for that given the other charges and his help.) Campaign violations that are criminal and not civil (such as these) carry a prison sentence of up to 5 years. They are explicitly grouped in the section of crimes that were used to determine sentencing. None of this is hidden, all these documents have been made public.

You yourself say that rational people should only deal with what the Special Counsel has publicly put on the table, which is why I keep directing you to the public filings.

Valcazar, when you fragment and dissect other's comments, you unintentionally or deliberately obscure their context. I think it's pretty clear when I say "let's not get lost in the weeds", I am referring to my opinion that the Stormy/McDougal payments are not a crime. I think I have been clear on that. You seem to be hammering home the idea that if SDNY and Cohen have proclaimed they were crimes then they are crimes. I believe I even mentioned legal scholars and a former FEC commissioner who has been widely published (not the NYTimes, Rumple) who say no crime has been committed. He's a conservative, but still a former FEC commissioner. So no, the SDNY does not have the slam dunk here you and others purport.

Yes, I wrote "The Podesta brothers' ties to Russia and influence peddling should be investigated and it still might be without Mueller." Take this as a throw away comment that doesn't need further debate. I believe the FBI might still be investigating the Clinton Foundation's dealings and Mueller might have handed off some information regarding the Podestas to federal prosecutors. If they are not currently investigating either, fine....so be it.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,559
28
48
49
Where I belong.
I'm sorry but these are liberal media outlets. Whether one thinks they have been fair to Trump or not, how these outlets handled the Christine Blasey testimony is a good litmus test. I seem to remember the Times was very sympathetic towards CBF and very much opposed to Kavanaugh. (Let's not debate CBF's testimony here. There's a separate discussion under MeToo.)
Your take on CBF is nothing short of hilarious. I'm not even going to comment further. By the way, the Guardian comes out of England. I'd hardly call it liberal. The Times and Post have both liberal and conservative columnists. (Oh, I suppose you wouldn't consider Max Boot, David Brooks, and George Will (if you've even heard of them) conservative.) The news departments of all of the do not editorialize. They deal in facts, not alternative facts.

When Trump is taken out of the discussion, the Forum membership is far more rational and probably a bit more conservative. I personally find the Wall Street Journal as a good right of center news source that isn't over the top.
While I don't think much of the editorial side of the WSJ, their news department is pretty much straight up as well. Did you see the story they broke on Friday about Trump's inaugural committee selling influence to Saudis and Russians. So when you have the Journal pointing out that which could put Trump behind bars, does it become fake news in your eyes?
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
As far as Cohen's sentencing, it was very clever. The SDNY had a piece of crap (Stormy/McDougal payments) and a crime (tax evasion). They wanted to legalize and validate the criminality of the piece of crap. They then wrapped Cohen's tax evasion crime in the piece of crap (the payments).

If you don't believe these things are political first and foremost, I have a bridge Donald Trump built that I would like to sell you.
 

cloudsurf

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2003
4,914
2,172
113
I have a bridge Donald Trump built that I would like to sell you.

Unfortunately that bridge is gone. It crumpled and fell into the Hudson River.

Like so many other things that guy has built, it was erected using inferior quality imported steel from China.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
Rumple,
I don't think you can conveniently separate the news departments of media outlets from their editorial departments. The NYTimes and WaPo have a liberal audience. They are going to present the news and editorials in a way that meets the political sensibilities of their readers. Media outlets don't really shape readers/viewers perspectives. They reflect and meet the expectations of their readers/viewers.

I'm glad you are happy with their reporting. It's also very interesting that the Guardian is based in Britain.

If someone was selling influence to Russia or the Saudis, they should be charged with a crime. I will have to read the WSJ article. (After reading the WSJ article, it pointed out the investigation and possible misspending of funds. I could not find the references to Russia or Saudi Arabia that you mentioned.)
 

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
859
256
83
That show is 35 years old now and is still sharper than 95% of everything ever broadcast on politics.
 

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
859
256
83
Hey, they put an 85 year old Whitey Bulger away. Trump's crimes are serious enough that there's no way they can be ignored. While a many decade old interpretation by the justice department says that a sitting president can't be indicted, there's certainly the possibility that that will be revisited. None other than Lawrence Tribe thinks it's a faulty interpretation.

And of course, he certainly can be indicted by the crimes committed that are violations of state law...and there are certainly many of them.


To be fair, Bulger was wanted on multiple violent counts including murder. Also, he had been on the run for 20 years or so before they caught him at 81. I do agree campaign finance violations of a criminal nature are important, but I think it is of a lower priority.

As far as the DOJ policy on not indicting a sitting president, it's a guideline and obviously the more severe the crime, the more pressure there will be to ignore it.

@sambuca - What *isn't* a liberal news outlet to you? (Currently, your only criteria as listed involves CBF, although I am not sure what standard of support for her makes something "liberal".) Or, perhaps more interestingly, do you think there is such a thing as a factual news outlet? (I assume you don't believe in the idea of a neutral one.) Do you believe in actual facts ever being reported or do you simply assume a postmodernist view of the world where there are no facts, only the power to force people to accept your version of events?

" I think it's pretty clear when I say "let's not get lost in the weeds", I am referring to my opinion that the Stormy/McDougal payments are not a crime. I think I have been clear on that. "

You have been clear on that. You said they probably invented something about it being a crime, I said the logic they are using is laid out in their statement, and you said reading the statement would be getting lost in the weeds. I directed you again to the statement. I don't think there has been any distortion of context. If you want to discuss why you think it isn't a crime, you kind of need to actually address what they said justifies treating it as a crime. For some reason you find this unfair.

You keep mentioning FEC charimen and judges who agree with you and not linking to them. It would be nice if you did. Because I can't tell if you think the crime doesn't exist (you keep claiming there is no crime for this, there is no jail time attached, etc.) or if you think the crime does exist, but Cohen did not violate it, despite his claiming that he did. I have agreed with you that Cohen's guilty plea does not make the implication that Trump is also guilty of the violation a slam dunk.

"Yes, I wrote "The Podesta brothers' ties to Russia and influence peddling should be investigated and it still might be without Mueller." Take this as a throw away comment that doesn't need further debate. I believe the FBI might still be investigating the Clinton Foundation's dealings and Mueller might have handed off some information regarding the Podestas to federal prosecutors. If they are not currently investigating either, fine....so be it."

You understand why this is frustrating though? You started with the claim that the Clintons and their associates have never faced this kind of investigation. That claim is plain false, as a few of us pointed out. Now you say the whole thiing was a throw away comment that didn't mean anything. It's like the comment about the Founders making sure the President can't be indicted. When I pointed out it wasn't true, you just vanished it. You mentioned a judge who explained why the Flynn indictment wasn't right, I asked for information, it vanished. There is an FEC chairman who says the Cohen thing isn't a crime (again, I don't know if he is saying no such crime exists or what Cohen did doesn't qualify) but there are no links.

I quote you to keep the conversation on track because you make lots of claims and I prefer claims be backed up with reasoning or evidence.


As far as Cohen's sentencing, it was very clever. The SDNY had a piece of crap (Stormy/McDougal payments) and a crime (tax evasion). They wanted to legalize and validate the criminality of the piece of crap. They then wrapped Cohen's tax evasion crime in the piece of crap (the payments).

Excellent. Something specific. I won't put words in your mouth, but will simply ask for details. Please explain what they did and how they did it. How was the Stormy Daniels/McDougal paymenrts "wrapped" into the piece of crap in order to validate it? Present your logic and your actual full argument, please.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,559
28
48
49
Where I belong.
To be fair, Bulger was wanted on multiple violent counts including murder. Also, he had been on the run for 20 years or so before they caught him at 81. I do agree campaign finance violations of a criminal nature are important, but I think it is of a lower priority.
As hideous as Bulger's crimes were, they really don't compare to undermining the electoral process of the US. And Trump has been on the run for at least 20 years himself. Boy, is he sorry he was ever elected.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,559
28
48
49
Where I belong.
That bastion of the liberal media, the radical left wing publication, Forbes (lol) is also in the game.

Just over a week ago, on Friday December 7, the Special Counsel’s Office headed by Robert Mueller for the first time outlined in a court filing the grand narrative of the Russia Probe. The court filing revealed what many had long suspected, that Trump and his family had used, or tried to use, his presidential candidacy, and then his presidency, to enhance their own wealth.

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.

The filing revealed that Mueller’s Office is now investigating the hypothesis that Donald Trump, his campaign, his organization and his associates participated in a massive election fraud, through five interlocking conspiracies—arguably the worst set of crimes against the United States in its history.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...-E7bsnvxrmo8oppzZn7UMZFd37Ut70sA#2608757648f6
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts