Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Trump Commutes Stone's Sentence

Recommended Posts

Had a plumbing issue and called a local place. Was talking to the guy they sent, white, early 40's. Spent 2.5 years in a hard prison in his 20's. For getting caught growing 6 marijuana plants in his basement.  Yet Stone walks free. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

I read that as win win meaning either his guy wins the election or ham is in a position to have choices and move somewhere he desires.  Everyone doesn’t have those choices I certainly don’t.   My 2 cents but I’ll stay out of it

I can see that too. I think mostly it just speaks to how the moderators are sick of the toolish back and forth. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

No. Actually this one was mostly just the mod being sick of it. Tony said something about it being a win if Ham moved away. People instantly reported it. Moderator was sick of asking people to be cool and he got suspended. I wouldn't have done it that long. But I also understand when the moderators are just sick of the never ending tool behavior. 

Fair enough...my point about past complaints stands.  Often someone claims they got suspended for something small and the mod comes in and states it was worse than claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Fair enough...my point about past complaints stands.  Often someone claims they got suspended for something small and the mod comes in and states it was worse than claimed.

Unbelievable, even when talking with the owner you feel the need to justify your post and get in the last word.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Unbelievable, even when talking with the owner you feel the need to justify your post and get in the last word.

Thanks for the input...totally necessary to post such things.  I had a civil few posts with the owner.  I think such exchanges are allowed just fine.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2020 at 10:33 PM, Ramblin Wreck said:

Read the post and cut the nonsense that people are claiming something different.  Jesus you never stop

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got around to reading this, which I suspect must be music to George P’s ears.  It really functions more as a testimony than anything else.  It’s a very long read but an important one.  

McCabe’s FBI subordinate Peter Strzok — who earlier texted that the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation was like an “insurance policy” in case of Trump’s election which “[w]e’ll stop” and he could “SMELL the Trump support” at a Walmart — intervened on January 4 to pull the memo terminating Flynn’s investigation.

The next day, January 5, Strzok attended an Oval Office Meeting with President Obama, National Security Adviser Rice, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI Director Comey. Among the topics were intercepted calls between Flynn and Russia’s Ambassador discussing sanctions. Strzok’s notes indicate Vice President Biden suggested that Flynn somehow violated a 216-year-old, possibly unconstitutional, and never successfully prosecuted, law called the Logan Act.

All of this — White House discussions, the taping of Flynn, Flynn-Russia conversations — were highly classified. They were never supposed to go public. If no one commits a felony by leaking them, this whole situation likely disappears. It is hard to believe anyone in Trump’s White House, or even in the last days of Obama’s presidency, would try to prosecute Flynn for a “Logan Act” violation of a possibly unconstitutional law he probably didn’t even violate, and that hasn’t been successfully prosecuted in its over two centuries of existence.

If this law — created to stop private citizens from intervening in foreign affairs — applied to incoming presidential teams, likely Joe Biden, Susan Rice, and most of the incoming international teams of Presidents Obama, Bush, Reagan, and Clinton would be guilty. Under our Constitution, it is the job of presidential campaigns to announce how they will change policy. So, unless someone commits the leak against Flynn, this all would be resolved internally. It is never transformed into a public Russia-Trump conspiracy tearing our country apart. But as we all now know, and history recorded, that is not what happened.

Five days after that the January 5 Oval Office meeting, I met Halper in Virginia. I didn’t think much about that meeting until Durham’s team requested I review my records. Because Halper had seemed increasingly erratic in our dealings, making it difficult to advance my doctoral work, I requested to start recording our conversations back in 2015 to document his guidance. 

When I listened to my January 10, 2017 recording a few weeks ago, I expected to find boring academic discussions. Instead I found something else.

In the recording Halper laid out what was about to happen to Flynn, something he had no independent reason to know. “I don’t think Flynn’s going to be around long,” he said, adding, “the way these things work” was that “opponents… so-called enemies” of Flynn would be “looking for ways of exerting pressure…that’s how it builds.” 

Flynn, he said, would be “squeezed pretty hard,” and Flynn’s “reaction to that is to blow up and get angry. He’s really ####ed. I don’t where he goes from there. But that is his reaction. That’s why he’s so unsuitable.” ...

 

One of the remaining tasks of investigators is determining the precise source of the leaks about Flynn to the Washington Post. These leaks were a critical inflection point. They revived the Trump-Russia investigations that were about to die and stopped Flynn before he could expose the fabrications and incompetence behind it all.

This is not a classic whistleblowing situation, wherein the confidentiality of the leaker should ideally remain sacrosanct in light of an important, socially-beneficial disclosure. This is the opposite: a leak seemingly manufactured with the intent of creating a media firestorm around a figure the FBI had already investigated, to no effect. The FBI’s key “confidential” source was already naming himself in a major global newspaper as he openly pushed Russia conspiracy theories.  ...

My former supervisor, using his booming voice and bold ideas, likes to be the center of attention. Yet for two years his allies with powerful intelligence, political, and media ties seem to have done the impossible. They made this massive figure almost completely disappear.

The Mueller and DOJ IG investigations of these scandals relied in large part on input from DOJ and FBI officials linked to potential abuses — including the FBI’s Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Lisa Page and DOJ’s Andrew Weisman. When Congress grilled long-time FBI leader Mueller about why he didn’t interview “Steven Schrage” or others who might expose DOJ or FBI improprieties, he stammered: “n those areas, I am going to stay away from…I stand by that which is in the report and not so necessarily with that, which is - which is not in the report.” 

Given Mueller’s stated preference to “stay away” from those with information that might implicate members of his team and the DOJ IG’s reliance on DOJ insiders, it’s not surprising that people like me who were in a position to expose the Russiagate narrative were not interviewed. 

What is surprising for anyone valuing journalistic standards, is that those under government investigation for abuses of power have so easily avoided hard questions. Some have even been given media contractsto spin their own actions. Imagine if Nixon’s allies appointed the Watergate burglars to investigate themselves, then placed them in nightly news positions where they could attack anyone questioning them. Politics shouldn’t destroy our principles.

There is too much to fully detail here, but further revelations – and they are forthcoming – will make these moves even more damning. How Cambridge Four members and Carter Page came together is a comedy of errors rivaling Dumb and Dumber. An FBI source had information that should have stopped Carter Page’s invasive surveillance in August 2016 before it started. A covert anti-Trump operative sought to be appointed to one of the world’s most powerful positions that could be used to undermine the president. 

Evidence suggests undisclosed famous officials, including Republicans, tried to cover up their links to Steele’s smears. The IG report contains statements by Crossfire officials that appear factual inaccurate, inherently inconsistent, or highly improbable, raising questions about whether they risked prosecution to conceal their acts.

“I don’t remember.” That should be the official, trademarked motto of the government officials involved in these events. It is what former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates responded under oath this past Wednesday. 

She had been asked if Vice President Biden raised the Logan Act in their Oval Office discussion of Flynn on January 5, 2017, seven days before the felony leak on Flynn’s alleged “Logan Act” violation was published. Flynn’s appeals hearing is on Tuesday, and Vice President Biden and President Trump are on the ballot in less than 90 days. These issues should be beyond politics. They should have been dealt with before now. They would have, if Washington insiders could “remember” things, like how to provide legally-mandated documents under our Constitution or their duties to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Opie

Quote

Believe it.

You cannot "pick and choose" which lines of a document are true or not.
if any part of it cannot be validated, it, in itself, cannot be submitted as "validated" evidence.

If you believe that part of a document is true, you have to submit evidence to validate that, in itself...
The original document is out.

Ummm...Actually, you can pick and choose which lines are true.  Only parts of the information were submitted.  If you have information refuting that...that the whole document was included...please post it.

I don't believe you are accurately reflecting what went on in the FISA Warrant or the investigation at all.  Please cite where you are getting this.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

@Opie

Ummm...Actually, you can pick and choose which lines are true.  Only parts of the information were submitted.  If you have information refuting that...that the whole document was included...please post it.

I don't believe you are accurately reflecting what went on in the FISA Warrant or the investigation at all.  Please cite where you are getting this.

What does Ummm mean? 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't say much about how they'll rule necessarily, but Flynn's lawyers didn't hold up very well with the full DC Circuit today.  Outside Henderson and Rao (the two who found in favor of Flynn in the 3-judge panel), it's not clear that Flynn's position has a lot of additional support.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Doesn't say much about how they'll rule necessarily, but Flynn's lawyers didn't hold up very well with the full DC Circuit today.  Outside Henderson and Rao (the two who found in favor of Flynn in the 3-judge panel), it's not clear that Flynn's position has a lot of additional support.

How so?  Is this your opinion?  Or the NYTimes?  Wapo?  Who's saying they didn't hold up well and based on what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Doesn't say much about how they'll rule necessarily, but Flynn's lawyers didn't hold up very well with the full DC Circuit today.  Outside Henderson and Rao (the two who found in favor of Flynn in the 3-judge panel), it's not clear that Flynn's position has a lot of additional support.

Very intelligent thread from people who actually understand what's going on in the questioning.

Ends by agreeing that it's likely 8-2 or 7-3 in Judge Sullivan's favor.  If so, Trump got lucky that the only two judges clearly supporting his position were on the initial panel of three.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

How so?  Is this your opinion?  Or the NYTimes?  Wapo?  Who's saying they didn't hold up well and based on what?

They got asked legal questions and didn't have very good answers.  They contradicted the law, contradicted themselves and have taken a position so extreme that they were forced into arguing, in court, in front of actual judges, that even if a prosecutor was on videotape being bribed to drop a case the judge in the case could not investigate.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope the DC Circuit calls out the Justice Department for what the motion to dismiss really is - a political sham.  Awfully hard for prosecutors to investigate, charge, argue motions, accept TWO guilty pleas, and then claim that it was all done in error and seek dismissal.  While prosecutorial discretion is important, it should involve matters of prosecution - not carrying out Bill Barr's political agenda to absolve the crimes the President's cronies. 

Trump will likely pardon Flynn because there is absolutely no accountability or culpability in this regime - they just do what they want and get away with it.  Heck, we have the President's own fixer convicted and sentenced for paying off porn stars with hush money at the President's bidding.  Cohen's telling all who will listen about the scheme, but does anyone do anything? Of course not, because this President has insulated himself with sycophants and loyalists in the Senate, the Justice Department, the Cabinet, and even the Post Office!  More corrupt than Nixon, and yet he stands a good chance of being re-elected, because he has gone full speed ahead with the authoritarian playbook.           

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mookie said:

Let's hope the DC Circuit calls out the Justice Department for what the motion to dismiss really is - a political sham.

Before Sullivan even holds his hearing to inquire about the Justice Department's motivation for seeking dismissal, what's the evidence already in the record that it's a political sham? That seems like a leap the appellate court will not make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Before Sullivan even holds his hearing to inquire about the Justice Department's motivation for seeking dismissal, what's the evidence already in the record that it's a political sham? That seems like a leap the appellate court will not make.

So it's a paradox?

If they were to find that it was a political sham they'd be implicitly accepting the plaintiff's arguments and would, therefore, have to find in his favor and dismiss the case against him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

So it's a paradox?

If they were to find that it was a political sham they'd be implicitly accepting the plaintiff's arguments and would, therefore, have to find in his favor and dismiss the case against him?

Flynn is not arguing that the dismissal should be granted because it's not a sham. He's arguing that the dismissal should be granted without regard to whether it's a sham.

The question of whether the requested dismissal a sham is therefore not before this appellate court, and it is unlikely to state an opinion about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Flynn is not arguing that the dismissal should be granted because it's not a sham. He's arguing that the dismissal should be granted without regard to whether it's a sham.

The question of whether the requested dismissal a sham is therefore not before this appellate court, and it is unlikely to state an opinion about it.

Right.  But IF they did find it a a political sham it would be absent evidence from the trial court.  Which, in turn, would mean they could accept Flynn's arguments re: Sullivan -- which also lack a fact trail at this point since Sullivan hasn't actually held the hearing in question yet.

(The bit about if you have to explain it, it probably wasn't very funny comes to mind here.)

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

(The bit about if you have to explain it, it probably wasn't very funny comes to mind here.)

I was pretty sure you were making a joke, but I couldn't tell what it was. (I read your post as if you meant to say "defendant" instead of "plaintiff," but I still couldn't follow it since Flynn isn't arguing that the request for dismissal is a political sham.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Before Sullivan even holds his hearing to inquire about the Justice Department's motivation for seeking dismissal, what's the evidence already in the record that it's a political sham? That seems like a leap the appellate court will not make.

True, the DC Circuit will determine whether Judge Sullivan has the discretionary authority to conduct a more thorough "investigation"* into the propriety of the motion to dismiss being filed after two guilty pleas have been entered and prior to the Flynn's sentencing. They will not review or discuss whether political motives are in play.  Those political motives could come up if, and when, Sullivan's "investigation" is authorized by the DC Circuit and resumes before Judge Sullivan. 

In my opinion, the motion to dismiss has no rational basis and lacks any objective, good faith justification.  In my view, it is an openly hostile and blatantly political move by newly appointed Justice Department officials seeking to cover up and normalize the corrupt practices of this administration.

*By "investigation" I am merely referring to Sullivan's demand for further information before granting the motion to dismiss - not a formal investigation by the Justice Department.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mookie said:

Let's hope the DC Circuit calls out the Justice Department for what the motion to dismiss really is - a political sham.  Awfully hard for prosecutors to investigate, charge, argue motions, accept TWO guilty pleas, and then claim that it was all done in error and seek dismissal.  While prosecutorial discretion is important, it should involve matters of prosecution - not carrying out Bill Barr's political agenda to absolve the crimes the President's cronies. 

Trump will likely pardon Flynn because there is absolutely no accountability or culpability in this regime - they just do what they want and get away with it.  Heck, we have the President's own fixer convicted and sentenced for paying off porn stars with hush money at the President's bidding.  Cohen's telling all who will listen about the scheme, but does anyone do anything? Of course not, because this President has insulated himself with sycophants and loyalists in the Senate, the Justice Department, the Cabinet, and even the Post Office!  More corrupt than Nixon, and yet he stands a good chance of being re-elected, because he has gone full speed ahead with the authoritarian playbook.           

There is ZERO doubt now that Flynn was railroaded by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress and intelligence.  It's all over but this now.

This will end up overturned either way.

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

There is ZERO doubt now that Flynn was railroaded by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress and intelligence.  It's all over but this now.

This will end up overturned either way.

lol.  I just came from a thread where you chastised a poster for passing off his opinion as fact.  too funny.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, zoonation said:

lol.  I just came from a thread where you chastised a poster for passing off his opinion as fact.  too funny.

Well it seems that the Justice department agrees with me.  :shrug:

 

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Well it seems that the Justice department agrees with me.  :shrug:

 

You mean Barr?   I doubt even he believes it.  It’s not about that though.  

But the Justice Department more broadly?  No chance.  ~ 2,000 ex justice department prosecutors penned a letter to Barr expressing their horror.  It was an assault on the rule of law.  

but you’re free to believe whatever you want.  I’d suggest less hyperbole when expressing your opinion and less hypocrisy when describing the posts of others.  

Cheers.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

There is ZERO doubt now that Flynn was railroaded by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress and intelligence.  It's all over but this now.

This will end up overturned either way.

The FBI asked Flynn questions that they already knew the answers to to see if he would lie to them. And then when he did lie, they used that against him to prosecute him.

Railroaded? Maybe. But its done ALL THE TIME.

I assume you think the FBI should no longer do this to any people under investigation? And the ones who have been convicted should have their convictions thrown out?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

There is ZERO doubt now that Flynn was railroaded by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress and intelligence.  It's all over but this now.

This will end up overturned either way.

Such hyperbole.  Zero doubt, in allcaps?  You sure about that, especially when Flynn pled guilty ... TWICE? 

A Democratic conspiracy, while the Republicans controlled the Oval office AND both the House and Senate? 

You are correct that the 3 Judge panel will likely be overturned by the full DC Circuit, meaning that the Motion to Dismiss is highly likely to be further scrutinized by Judge Sullivan.  I don't think that was what you meant. 

Maybe Sullivan just makes the Justice Department engage in legal gymnastics before dismissing the case.  Or maybe he refuses to dismiss the case because it is so transparently political.  If no dismissal happens, or if this drags on into the weeks before the November election, Trump will have to consider pardoning a known and admitted felon who lied about his Russian contacts in the days before the 2016 election (perhaps this is the other way of overturning you are referring to?).  That's not the kind of front page news you want before another election, but I guess the normal response in these times is to blame Obama.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A Trump Trip to Las Vegas Adds Intrigue to the Steele Dossier (2018)

Quote

 

Of all the allegations about Donald Trump contained in the ex-British spy Christopher Steele’s infamous “dossier,” the most notorious remains a secondhand report that Trump consorted with prostitutes in 2013 while staying in the Presidential suite at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, in Moscow, and that, at his request, the prostitutes urinated on a bed in which President Barack Obama and his wife had previously slept.

Early last year, when this allegation became public, along with much of the rest of the dossier, Trump denounced it as “crap” compiled by “sick people.” Since then, the allegation has remained uncorroborated, a fact that has given ammunition to those who want to dismiss the entire dossier as a fabrication. When it first emerged in public, the hotel-room allegation’s credibility was so hotly debated, it split the legendary investigative-reporting team of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who won a joint Pulitzer Prize for their exposure of the Watergate scandal. Bernstein, who helped CNN break the news of the Steele dossier, last January, argued that it was “not fake news.” But Woodward dismissed it as “garbage,” a comment that won him a thank-you note from Trump.

In a new book being published on Tuesday, “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump,” the co-authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn report an anecdote suggesting that so-called golden showers were a form of entertainment familiar to some in Trump’s circle, even if not necessarily to Trump himself. According to the authors, both of whom are veteran, Washington-based investigative reporters, in the early-morning hours of June 15, 2013, some five months before the alleged Moscow incident, Trump visited a Las Vegas night club called the Act that was infamous for its sexually explicit theatre shows. Among the skits regularly performed at the Act were two in which semi-nude women would simulate urination onstage. As Isikoff and Corn note, it is unclear whether these skits were performed on the night that Trump visited the club. But court records confirm that they were in the club’s regular repertoire.

The reason that court records exist at all is that the Act’s obscene entertainment was, at the time of Trump’s visit, the target of a joint undercover investigation by the Nevada Gaming Control Board and the club’s landlord, the Palazzo hotel and casino—which is owned by Sheldon Adelson, a major Republican Party donor. A few months after Trump visited the Act, a Nevada state judge issued an injunction against the club, shutting down its “lewd” and “offensive” performances. In the course of the legal wrangling, investigators submitted detailed descriptions of the the Act’s shows. These, according to court records, included “simulated masturbation, simulated use of narcotics, use of dildos, strap-on penises, simulated defecation, and simulated urination.” In one skit, titled “Hot for Teacher,” an actor in the role of a professor would write an obscene title for a lecture on a blackboard, after which female actors purporting to be college girls would disrobe and stand over the professor, appearing to urinate on him, before revealing a water bottle. In another skit, according to the court records, two women would drink from champagne flutes and snort a white powdery substance, after which they would undress, and one would simulate urinating on the other, who would catch the liquid in two wine glasses and then drink it.

Isikoff and Corn note that the Act closed after the judge ruled against it, and that they were unable to determine which skits were performed the night that Trump attended, or even whether Trump paid any attention to what was onstage. Instead, Isikoff and Corn write that Trump’s focus that night was apparently the cementing of a business relationship with one of his companions, Emin Agalarov, an Azerbaijani pop singer. Trump, the authors write, was wooing Agalarov’s wealthy and Kremlin-connected family in pursuit of potential Russian business deals. “Russian Roulette” quotes Rob Goldstone, a British publicist for the pop singer, who was also present at the Act that night, recalling Trump extolling his plans. Trump reportedly told Emin, “We’re going to have a great relationship.” Later that day, Trump announced that the Agalarov family would partner with him in presenting the 2013 Miss Universe competition in Moscow. It was during the Miss Universe competition, in November of 2013, according to the Steele dossier’s sources, that Trump allegedly engaged the prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the book’s allegations concerning Trump’s 2013 visit to the Las Vegas night club.)

A source close to Steele, who declined to be identified, described the overlap between the Act’s performances and the Ritz-Carlton allegation as “interesting.” He acknowledged that for Steele, whose life and work I recently investigated for The New Yorker, the details in the new book are likely to be “something of a two-edged sword.” As he put it, “There’s a risk that there was some conflation of the story,” meaning a blurring of what happened at the Act and what allegedly happened at the Moscow hotel. But at the same time, he noted, “It does suggest that there is some kind of track record here. This behavior was not unheard of in Trump’s circle. So in that sense, it adds to the credibility of the dossier.” (In “Russian Roulette,” Corn and Isikoff report that Steele would tell colleagues his confidence in the Ritz-Carlton story was “fifty-fifty.” He treated everything in the dossier as raw intelligence material—not proven fact.)

“Russian Roulette” also sheds more light on Steele’s sources—whose identities he has fiercely guarded. According to Isikoff and Corn, Steele’s sources include two figures whose expertise may be questionable. One source for the “golden showers” allegation, according to Isikoff and Corn, was Sergei Millian, a mysterious Belarusian-American businessman whose claims to have been an intimate of Trump and his circle have been disputed by those close to Trump. The authors assert that Millian was an “unwitting” source for Steele—that he spoke about Trump to an interlocutor without realizing that his statements were being conveyed to the former British spy. Millian, however, has subsequently appeared on Russian television to deny that he has ever had any damning information about the President. The Steele dossier, the authors write, “described Millian as a Trump intimate, but there was no public evidence he was close to the mogul.” (The Steele dossier, however, did cite several other sources for the Ritz-Carlton allegation, whom Corn and Isikoff don’t mention, including a “member of the staff at the hotel” and “a female staffer at the hotel when Trump stayed there.”) The other unconventional source, according to the authors, is an unnamed woman whom they describe as “the paramour of a Kremlin insider.” In other words, as they put it, some of the incendiary allegations against the President of the United States contained in the Steele dossier may have begun literally as “pillow talk.”

 

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:
Quote

they were unable to determine which skits were performed the night that Trump attended, or even whether Trump paid any attention to what was onstage. 

I hope you guys remember when it's Biden's turn and the investigators say they were unable to determine.  :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/14/2020 at 5:45 AM, BassNBrew said:

I hope you guys remember when it's Biden's turn and the investigators say they were unable to determine.

It was 2013, the judge closed it down, I guess he determined it happened. I think it's Cohen who apparently is going to confirm it now. Anyway there are pictures of Trump at the event with the Agalarovs, it's not in dispute that he was there.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Biff84 said:

Cohen also made reference to golden showers in a Vegas club in the foreword of his book. I have a feeling he not only has knowledge of what happened in Vegas, he was probably there. And he probably knows if the pee tape happened later.

Right, this is really about Cohen's book.

The article I posted above was just the first report of the source of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In Tell-All Foreword, Cohen Promises Sordid Tales Trump ‘Does Not Want You to Read’

In his memoir, “Disloyal,” Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s onetime lawyer and fixer, claims that he had unique access to Mr. Trump, a man with “no true friends.”

 

WASHINGTON — Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s onetime lawyer and fixer, released the foreword of his upcoming jailhouse tell-all on Thursday, posting to his website an introduction in which he promised stories involving the president and everything from “golden showers in a sex club in Vegas, to tax fraud, to deals with corrupt officials from the former Soviet Union.”

In the foreword to his memoir, “Disloyal: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump,” Mr. Cohen claims that he had unique access to Mr. Trump, a man with “no true friends,” who trusted Mr. Cohen so much that his cellphone contacts were synced with his own.

“I bore witness to the real man, in strip clubs, shady business meetings, and in the unguarded moments when he revealed who he really was: a cheat, a liar, a fraud, a bully, a racist, a predator, a con man,” Mr. Cohen writes, claiming he has gained from those experiences a singular understanding of the president.

Mr. Cohen does not explain more in the foreword about his experience with Mr. Trump in Las Vegas, but the book will most likely revive questions about the veracity of an infamous claim in a dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, about Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.

In it, Mr. Steele wrote that Mr. Trump had prostitutes urinate on a bed where President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, once slept, and that the Kremlin had recordings. Mr. Trump has denied the story, and it remains unsubstantiated. James B. Comey, who as F.B.I. director briefed the president about the dossier, has said that “it’s possible, but I don’t know.”

On Twitter, Mr. Cohen said he had “waited a long time to share my truth” as he posted a link to order a signed or an unsigned copy. In the foreword, he promises that “this is a book the president of the United States does not want you to read.”

Indeed, the government tried to stop the publication of Mr. Cohen’s book, according to a federal judge. Much of it was written on yellow legal pads by hand from Otisville Federal Prison.

Last month, a federal judge ruled that the decision to return Mr. Cohen to custody from home confinement amounted to retaliation by the government for his plans to publish the unflattering portrait of Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen had been sent home because of the coronavirus pandemic. The judge ordered him to be released back into home confinement.

The book does not yet have a publication date. Mr. Cohen wrote online that it was “coming soon.” He has not said who his publisher is.

...

Mr. Cohen writes in his foreword that “Trump had colluded with the Russians, but not in the sophisticated ways imagined by his detractors.” He claims that “Trump had cheated in the election, with Russian connivance, as you will discover in these pages, because doing anything — and I mean anything — to ‘win’ has always been his business model and way of life.”

Mr. Cohen presents himself as a repentant “bad guy” and says that while readers might conclude that they dislike him, they must be acquainted with seedy, venal characters like himself if they want to understand the world occupied by Mr. Trump.

“I stiffed contractors on his behalf, ripped off his business partners, lied to his wife Melania to hide his sexual infidelities, and bullied and screamed at anyone who threatened Trump’s path to power,” he writes.

Mr. Cohen says that as a presidential candidate, Mr. Trump “attempted to insinuate himself into the world of President Vladimir Putin and his coterie of corrupt billionaire oligarchs.”

“I know because I personally ran that deal and kept Trump and his children closely informed of all updates,” he adds.

Mr. Cohen claims authority on his subject, noting that “for more than a decade, I was Trump’s first call every morning and his last call every night.”

“I was in and out of Trump’s office on the 26th floor of the Trump Tower as many as 50 times a day, tending to his every demand,” he writes. Mr. Cohen claims that for many people trying to reach the former real estate developer, “when I spoke to them, it was as good as if they were talking directly to Trump.”

Mr. Cohen, 53, pleaded guilty in 2018 to campaign finance violations and other crimes stemming from a scheme to pay hush money to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump before he was president. Mr. Trump has denied the accusations.

Mr. Cohen had been serving a three-year sentence at a minimum-security prison camp in Otisville, N.Y., about 75 miles northwest of New York City.

From prison, he writes, he has watched men like Rudolph W. Giuliani, William P. Barr, Jared Kushner and Mike Pompeo act as “Trump’s new wannabe fixers, sycophants willing to distort the truth and break the law in the service of the boss.” But he says none of them have been able to fill the void left where he once stood. “Trump doesn’t want to hear this, and he will certainly deny it, but he’s lost without his original bulldog lawyer Roy Cohn, or his other former pit bull and personal attorney, Michael Cohen.”

Mr. Cohen’s book is one of several tell-alls from former Trump insiders that are being released before Election Day. Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former friend and adviser to the first lady, Melania Trump, is set to publish “Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady” on Sept. 1.

Rick Gates, a former high-level aide on Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign and a star witness in the Russia investigation, is expected to release a memoir, “Wicked Game,” in October. ...

 

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

In Tell-All Foreword, Cohen Promises Sordid Tales Trump ‘Does Not Want You to Read’

In his memoir, “Disloyal,” Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s onetime lawyer and fixer, claims that he had unique access to Mr. Trump, a man with “no true friends.”

  Reveal hidden contents

WASHINGTON — Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s onetime lawyer and fixer, released the foreword of his upcoming jailhouse tell-all on Thursday, posting to his website an introduction in which he promised stories involving the president and everything from “golden showers in a sex club in Vegas, to tax fraud, to deals with corrupt officials from the former Soviet Union.”

In the foreword to his memoir, “Disloyal: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump,” Mr. Cohen claims that he had unique access to Mr. Trump, a man with “no true friends,” who trusted Mr. Cohen so much that his cellphone contacts were synced with his own.

“I bore witness to the real man, in strip clubs, shady business meetings, and in the unguarded moments when he revealed who he really was: a cheat, a liar, a fraud, a bully, a racist, a predator, a con man,” Mr. Cohen writes, claiming he has gained from those experiences a singular understanding of the president.

Mr. Cohen does not explain more in the foreword about his experience with Mr. Trump in Las Vegas, but the book will most likely revive questions about the veracity of an infamous claim in a dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, about Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.

In it, Mr. Steele wrote that Mr. Trump had prostitutes urinate on a bed where President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, once slept, and that the Kremlin had recordings. Mr. Trump has denied the story, and it remains unsubstantiated. James B. Comey, who as F.B.I. director briefed the president about the dossier, has said that “it’s possible, but I don’t know.”

On Twitter, Mr. Cohen said he had “waited a long time to share my truth” as he posted a link to order a signed or an unsigned copy. In the foreword, he promises that “this is a book the president of the United States does not want you to read.”

Indeed, the government tried to stop the publication of Mr. Cohen’s book, according to a federal judge. Much of it was written on yellow legal pads by hand from Otisville Federal Prison.

Last month, a federal judge ruled that the decision to return Mr. Cohen to custody from home confinement amounted to retaliation by the government for his plans to publish the unflattering portrait of Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen had been sent home because of the coronavirus pandemic. The judge ordered him to be released back into home confinement.

The book does not yet have a publication date. Mr. Cohen wrote online that it was “coming soon.” He has not said who his publisher is.

...

Mr. Cohen writes in his foreword that “Trump had colluded with the Russians, but not in the sophisticated ways imagined by his detractors.” He claims that “Trump had cheated in the election, with Russian connivance, as you will discover in these pages, because doing anything — and I mean anything — to ‘win’ has always been his business model and way of life.”

Mr. Cohen presents himself as a repentant “bad guy” and says that while readers might conclude that they dislike him, they must be acquainted with seedy, venal characters like himself if they want to understand the world occupied by Mr. Trump.

“I stiffed contractors on his behalf, ripped off his business partners, lied to his wife Melania to hide his sexual infidelities, and bullied and screamed at anyone who threatened Trump’s path to power,” he writes.

Mr. Cohen says that as a presidential candidate, Mr. Trump “attempted to insinuate himself into the world of President Vladimir Putin and his coterie of corrupt billionaire oligarchs.”

“I know because I personally ran that deal and kept Trump and his children closely informed of all updates,” he adds.

Mr. Cohen claims authority on his subject, noting that “for more than a decade, I was Trump’s first call every morning and his last call every night.”

“I was in and out of Trump’s office on the 26th floor of the Trump Tower as many as 50 times a day, tending to his every demand,” he writes. Mr. Cohen claims that for many people trying to reach the former real estate developer, “when I spoke to them, it was as good as if they were talking directly to Trump.”

Mr. Cohen, 53, pleaded guilty in 2018 to campaign finance violations and other crimes stemming from a scheme to pay hush money to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump before he was president. Mr. Trump has denied the accusations.

Mr. Cohen had been serving a three-year sentence at a minimum-security prison camp in Otisville, N.Y., about 75 miles northwest of New York City.

From prison, he writes, he has watched men like Rudolph W. Giuliani, William P. Barr, Jared Kushner and Mike Pompeo act as “Trump’s new wannabe fixers, sycophants willing to distort the truth and break the law in the service of the boss.” But he says none of them have been able to fill the void left where he once stood. “Trump doesn’t want to hear this, and he will certainly deny it, but he’s lost without his original bulldog lawyer Roy Cohn, or his other former pit bull and personal attorney, Michael Cohen.”

Mr. Cohen’s book is one of several tell-alls from former Trump insiders that are being released before Election Day. Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former friend and adviser to the first lady, Melania Trump, is set to publish “Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady” on Sept. 1.

Rick Gates, a former high-level aide on Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign and a star witness in the Russia investigation, is expected to release a memoir, “Wicked Game,” in October. ...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Did Barr explain whether he had a role in putting Cohen back in jail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SoBeDad said:

Did Barr explain whether he had a role in putting Cohen back in jail?

I don't recall Barr being put on the spot on that. A federal judge did find there was retaliation and persecution of Cohen though.

- I doubt DOJ/BOP functionaries stick their nose into presidential cases all on their own.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://mobile.twitter.com/dnvolz/status/1295727446415814656

>> Trump told Mueller in written answers that he recalled no conversations with Stone about WikiLeaks. SSCI: "The Committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone’s access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions." <<

https://mobile.twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1295723474045083648

>>   Some details about the day of the Access Hollywood tape/Podesta emails release: Trump campaign team heard about the tape an hour before its release. Stone told Corsi to get Assange to "drop the Podesta emails immediately." WikiLeaks did so 30 min after tape published.  <<

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Senate Intelligence Committee's bipartisan report on the counterintelligence piece of their investigation is out.

There's a lot to unpack here, but here is the conclusion:

Quote

 

Executive Branch Investigations

...The Russian attack on the 2016 U.S. elections presented a new, quickly-evolving, and complex set of circumstances for the FBI. However, the Committee found that FBI overly adhered to the letter of its procedures in dealings with the DNC, rather than recognizing the gap between those procedures and effective the pursuit of its mission, and did not follow its procedures closely enough in the handling of Christopher Steele. During both of these matters, FBI did not quickly identify the problem and adjust course when it became clear its actions were ineffective.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Quote:

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Influence for Hire

The Committee found that highly evolved tools used to shape popular sentiment were utilized in support of the Trump Campaign during the 2016 election season, and Russia has made use of such tools in its influence operations, but a link between Russian efforts and the Campaign's use of these tools was not established. These commercially available services-many of which are based overseas-rely on an array of personal information to build targeted messaging profiles. Russia applied these same ·technologies and methodologies to its influence· campaign during the 2016 election and, in doing so, conducted foreign influence operations against the United States with a speed, precision, and scale not previously seen. The commoditization of these influence capabilities by for-profit firms working in the political and particularly electoral space, coupled with deeply concerning foreign government and intelligence service ties to some organizations, were troubling enough to warrant additional Committee scrutiny.

Transition

Russia took advantage of members of the Transition Team's relative inexperience in government, opposition to Obama Administration policies, arid Trump's desire to deepen ties with Russia to pursue unofficial channels through which Russia could conduct diplomacy. Russia was not alone in these efforts-U .S. allies and adversaries also sought inroads with the Transition. The existence of a cadre of informal advisors to the Transition Team with varying levels of access to the President-elect and varying awareness of foreign affairs presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities. The lack of vetting of foreign interactions by Transition officials left the Transition open to influence and manipulation by foreign intelligence services, government officials, and co-opted business executives.

The Transition Team repeatedly took actions that had the potential, and sometimes the effect, of interfering in the Obama Administration's diplomatic efforts. This created confusion among U.S. allies and other world leaders, most notably surrounding negotiations over a UN Security Council Resolution on Israel. Russia may have deferred response to the sanctions the Obama Administration put in place in late December because of Flynn's intervention and promise of a new relationship with the Trump administration.

Also during the transition, several Russian actors not formally associated with the Russian Government attempted to establish contact with senior members of the Transition Team. In mid-December, Sergey Gorkov, the head of a U.S. sanctioned Russian bank, met with Jared Kushner and discussed diplomatic relations. Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of U.S.-sanctioned Russian Direct Investment Fund, used multiple business contacts to try to make inroads with Transition Team officials. One such contact was Rick Gerson, a hedge fund manager and friend of Kushner's. Gerson and Dmitriev constructed a five-point plan on how to improve relations between Russia and the U.S. and presented it to the Transition Team and the Kremlin, respectively. Dmitriev also made contact with Erik Prince, who passed on the contents of the discussions to Steve Bannon. Separately, Bob Foresman, an American businessman living in Moscow who sought a position in the Trump Administration, conveyed brief messages between the Trump Campaign and several Kremlin-linked individuals, including Putin confidant Matthias Wamig, and provided other information relating to the U.S.-Russia relationship during the Transition.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Thanks 2
  • Thinking 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SoBeDad said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/dnvolz/status/1295727446415814656

>> Trump told Mueller in written answers that he recalled no conversations with Stone about WikiLeaks. SSCI: "The Committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone’s access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions." <<

https://mobile.twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1295723474045083648

>>   Some details about the day of the Access Hollywood tape/Podesta emails release: Trump campaign team heard about the tape an hour before its release. Stone told Corsi to get Assange to "drop the Podesta emails immediately." WikiLeaks did so 30 min after tape published.  <<

This is :Coordination:

- The Senate Intel Committee also found that WL had coordinated with Russian intelligence.

Quote

The GRU transferred the information stolen from the Clinton Campaign and DNC to WikiLeaks, likely because WikiLeaks offered a more effective platform to disseminate stolen documents than the GRU' s own organic methods. The GRU communicated with WikiLeaks using its fake personas throughout the summer of 2016. It transferred data to WikiLeaks through electronic means, and may also have transferred data to WikiLeaks through human couriers.

Quote

Wikileaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian campaign, and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort. The Committee found significant indications that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have benefited from Russian government support... [REDACTED].

Also:

Quote

The committee "found significant evidence to suggest that, in the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks was knowingly collaborating with Russian government officials.”

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the report:

“The Cmte’s bipartisan Report found Paul Manafort, while he was Chmn ofthe Trump Campaign, was secretly communicating with a Russian intelligence officer with whom he discussed Campaign strategy and repeatedly shared internal Campaign polling data. This took place while the Russian intelligence operation to assist Trump was ongoing. Further, Manafort took steps to hide these communications & repeatedly lied to federal investigators, and his deputy on the Campaign destroyed evidence of communications w/the Russian intel officer. The Cmte obtained some info suggesting the Russian intel officer w/whom Manafort had a longstanding relationship may have been connected to the GRU's hack-and-leak operation targeting the 2016 US election.”

“This is what collusion looks like.”

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -jb- said:

Seems kinda collusiony.

HOAXY

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I guess it wasn't "....,just a joke!" when DJT asked Russia and wikileaks to "see those missing Emails that Hilary doesn't want you to see...."

He's guilty of so much crap he's scared of losing the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marco's take:

>> We found no evidence of “collusion” But we did find troubling actions by the FBI, particularly their willingness to rely on “Steele Dossier”. <<

Someone needs to ask him some questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

Wikileaks and Assange in bed with Russia and Trump...you don't say.

 

I was told Assange is just an innocent journalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, urbanhack said:
1 hour ago, -jb- said:

Seems kinda collusiony.

HOAXY

delusion :rolleyes:

 

ETA  Plus we don't have Trump or any member of his family or staff specifically saying "hey GB russians, lets do some collusion! ool"   So there can't be collusion.

 

/jumpyproquo

Edited by 2Squirrels1Nut
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.