Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Trump Fires IG who Reported Whistleblower Complaint to Congress

Recommended Posts

Just now, Jackstraw said:

Twitter seems to think a Don Jr arrest is "imminent".

Haven't seen that out of any larger news organizations though. 

 

I don't think any arrest of any person under the protection of the Secret Service is "imminent"...

 

That strikes me as a rather delicate situation, which would be handled much differently than a "perp walk", and would involve the person turning themselves in secretly, and being held under house arrest - at best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If you haven't listed to Rachel Maddow's new podcast "Bag Man"... you should give it a listen. It is strikingly similar to what we are seeing today. And most people (myself included) are not familiar with it at all.

Started listening when I saw this post.  Midway through Episode 2.  Love it!  Thanks.

Edited by Mr. Ham

Share this post


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

Stupid joke, but he did also say this: “I am here to tell you and everyone else that Mr. Mueller will be allowed to do his job, and hopefully that investigation will come to a conclusion here pretty soon.”

“I’m going to have him assure me that he’s going to let Mr. Mueller do his job, and if there’s any interference, you’ll be the first to hear about it on Fox News,” [Graham] said to MacCallum. “I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’m not concerned about that. If I were, I would tell you.”“I’m going to have him assure me that he’s going to let Mr. Mueller do his job, and if there’s any interference, you’ll be the first to hear about it on Fox News,” he said to MacCallum. “I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’m not concerned about that. If I were, I would tell you.”

Share this post


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

Stupid joke, but he did also say this: “I am here to tell you and everyone else that Mr. Mueller will be allowed to do his job, and hopefully that investigation will come to a conclusion here pretty soon.”

“I’m going to have him assure me that he’s going to let Mr. Mueller do his job, and if there’s any interference, you’ll be the first to hear about it on Fox News,” [Graham] said to MacCallum. “I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’m not concerned about that. If I were, I would tell you.”“I’m going to have him assure me that he’s going to let Mr. Mueller do his job, and if there’s any interference, you’ll be the first to hear about it on Fox News,” he said to MacCallum. “I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’m not concerned about that. If I were, I would tell you.”

Ok I totally feel better.  When has Graham ever not backed up what he said.  ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ignoramus said:

Stupid joke, but he did also say this: “I am here to tell you and everyone else that Mr. Mueller will be allowed to do his job, and hopefully that investigation will come to a conclusion here pretty soon.”

“I’m going to have him assure me that he’s going to let Mr. Mueller do his job, and if there’s any interference, you’ll be the first to hear about it on Fox News,” [Graham] said to MacCallum. “I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’m not concerned about that. If I were, I would tell you.”“I’m going to have him assure me that he’s going to let Mr. Mueller do his job, and if there’s any interference, you’ll be the first to hear about it on Fox News,” he said to MacCallum. “I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’m not concerned about that. If I were, I would tell you.”

:lmao: 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hilts said:

Strange angle for them to take with this article. He was appointment because he’s a crackpot. He was appointment because of his strongly partisan views. He was vetted - not in a typical way but to make sure he was someone who would be loyal.

It’s silly to think that this was some kind of lack of vetting. Look at all the cabinet members appointed to departments they’ve spoken out against in the past. This was no accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, msommer said:

IIRC most of Graham's resistance to Trump came before their golf outing. Deal? Kompromat?

 

I remember this too. Seems like he's compromised as well. He went from mild critic to a blind Trump's defender basically overnight after that round of golf. 

Found this old article.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/why-lindsey-graham-and-trump-are-best-friends-2017-12

He immediately came out lying for Trump. Anyone believe trump shot a 73?

"He hit the ball on the screws," Graham said, suggesting that the president had shot an incredible 73 on an 18-hole course, roughly par for 18 holes.

Edited by fossdboss
Added article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Indestructible said:

This headline is misleading.  It makes it seem as though the order was directed only to Mueller.  Instead, the court told both sides to brief the issue.  

Yeah, this is a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an encouraging piece in today's Atlantic about it being too late to derail the Mueller train.

You can almost hear the author of the piece giggling to himself when he writes his Point No. 8, which essentially suggests that Whitaker could do the right thing.

Quote

It is one thing to spout off #maganonsense about Mueller on CNN while you’re a private citizen. But Whitaker, assuming he does not recuse himself, will now get briefed on the actual Mueller investigation, having taken an oath of office to preserve and protect the Constitution. Let’s assume for a moment that Mueller will have compelling facts and his briefing will be impressive. It would be hard to look Bob Mueller in the face, discussing his actual investigation with the facts and legal theories squarely on the table, and then carry water for a subject of that investigation. If Whitaker does this, the nakedness of it will be transparent to all involved and trigger some of the cultural and normative reactions described in the previous two points.

It’s also possible—if unlikely, given Whitaker’s background—that Whitaker will actually be moved by reality when confronted with it. Moreover, the norms and history of the Justice Department are extremely powerful and act upon those who show up. Think of Sessions, a political animal who got confirmed and then immediately recused himself on the advice of career officials. Perhaps Whitaker will defy all of this, but it’s not an easy thing to do—and if Whitaker does it, he will do it knowing that he will go down in history as a John Mitchell figure. That should at least be food for thought on his part.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WSJ story is quite the bomb...

Quote

Donald Trump Played Central Role in Hush Payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal
Federal prosecutors have gathered evidence of president’s participation in transactions that violated campaign-finance laws


By Joe Palazzolo, Nicole Hong, Michael Rothfeld, Rebecca Davis O’Brien and Rebecca Ballhaus
Nov. 9, 2018 1:03 p.m. ET
 

As a presidential candidate in August 2015, Donald Trump huddled with a longtime friend, media executive David Pecker, in his cluttered 26th floor Trump Tower office and made a request.

What can you do to help my campaign? he asked, according to people familiar with the meeting.

Mr. Pecker, chief executive of American Media Inc., offered to use his National Enquirer tabloid to buy the silence of women if they tried to publicize alleged sexual encounters with Mr. Trump.

Less than a year later, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Pecker to quash the story of a former Playboy model who said they’d had an affair. Mr. Pecker’s company soon paid $150,000 to the model, Karen McDougal, to keep her from speaking publicly about it. Mr. Trump later thanked Mr. Pecker for the assistance.

The Trump Tower meeting and its aftermath are among several previously unreported instances in which Mr. Trump intervened directly to suppress stories about his alleged sexual encounters with women, according to interviews with three dozen people who have direct knowledge of the events or who have been briefed on them, as well as court papers, corporate records and other documents.

Taken together, the accounts refute a two-year pattern of denials by Mr. Trump, his legal team and his advisers that he was involved in payoffs to Ms. McDougal and a former adult-film star. They also raise the possibility that the president of the United States violated federal campaign-finance laws.

The Wall Street Journal found that Mr. Trump was involved in or briefed on nearly every step of the agreements. He directed deals in phone calls and meetings with his self-described fixer, Michael Cohen, and others. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan has gathered evidence of Mr. Trump’s participation in the transactions....

Mr. Cohen, who implicated the president in his crimes when he pleaded guilty in August, has met with investigators for Mr. Mueller and with federal prosecutors in New York, seeking to provide information that could mitigate his sentence, which is scheduled for Dec. 12.

He told federal prosecutors he conferred with Mr. Trump in the weeks before the 2016 election about paying Stephanie Clifford, the former adult-film star known professionally as Stormy Daniels, to keep quiet about her allegations of a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump. He told them that Mr. Trump urged him to “get it done.”

Mr. Cohen has also described to prosecutors his discussions with Mr. Trump and a Trump Organization executive about how to pay Ms. Clifford without leaving the candidate’s fingerprints on the deal....

 

 

Edited by Don Quixote
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Don Quixote said:

WSJ story is quite the bomb...

 

 

Wow!  Purely criminal. And WSJ is Murdoch.  That’s maybe a tip to a slew of things to come...  cutting bait on Trump now that midterms are done?

Edited by Mr. Ham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Wow!  Purely criminal. And WSJ is Murdoch.  That’s maybe a tip to a slew of things to come...  cutting bait on Trump now that midterms are done?

Well...he may not be getting his wall but a Wall is getting him?

Yeah, that didn't quite work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Well...he may not be getting his wall but a Wall is getting him?

Yeah, that didn't quite work.

It’s not a nothing burger.  It’s a Wahlburger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Wow!  Purely criminal. And WSJ is Murdoch.  That’s maybe a tip to a slew of things to come...  cutting bait on Trump now that midterms are done?

If memory serves, the op-ed piece of WSJ, is more Trumpian than the reporting side of the WSJ

Edited by Sinn Fein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be funny to hear the “Lock him up” chants during Beta’s 2020 campaign rallies 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Don Quixote said:

WSJ story is quite the bomb...

 

 

Is there any doubt the WSJ sat on this story until after the midterms for political purposes?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, berndog said:

It will be funny to hear the “Lock him up” chants during Beta’s 2020 campaign rallies 

lol (as in that would be kind of funny)  But, Beta can't even beat Ted Cruz.  Plus he's a Beta not an Alpha.  

Share this post


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

lol (as in that would be kind of funny)  But, Beta can't even beat Ted Cruz.  Plus he's a Beta not an Alpha.  

Wait. You consider Donald 'no mean questions or I'll ban you' Trump to be an alpha??  The guy who poops his pants in Putin's presence?  ??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JuniorNB said:

Wait. You consider Donald 'no mean questions or I'll ban you' Trump to be an alpha??  The guy who poops his pants in Putin's presence?  ??

No I don't really think it takes an Alpha to beat Ted Cruz, it was more a play on they guys name actually being Beta.

Share this post


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

No I don't really think it takes an Alpha to beat Ted Cruz, it was more a play on they guys name actually being Beta.

Phew!  Ok, good

Share this post


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

WSJ story is quite the bomb...

Quote

Mr. Trump instructed Mr. Cohen to coordinate with his son Eric Trump to silence Ms. Clifford in arbitration. It didn’t work; Ms. Clifford ignored the arbitrator’s restraining order.

Oh hi, Eric.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Oh hi, Eric.

Eric, the other idiot son

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, berndog said:

It will be funny to hear the “Lock him up” chants during Beta’s 2020 campaign rallies 

You steal this from T_D? ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If memory serves, the op-ed piece of WSJ, is more Trumpian than the reporting side of the WSJ

I simply don't know how to reconcile how differently the WSJ's editorial board and news room have covered Donald this past year. Yeah, upper management is totally gobbling Don's knob but, otoh, they give the news room seemingly complete freedom to freely investigate the Big Baby in Chief.

46 minutes ago, adonis said:

Is there any doubt the WSJ sat on this story until after the midterms for political purposes?

See above, the news room there has launched some real salvos at Don the past two years, have publicly #####ed about their editorial direction and yet keep on coming. If they're getting squelched, they're not being chained for too long. This is a most un-Republican thing for WSJ to be doing and I simply don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine banging a porn star behind your wife's back and working in tandem with your son to cover it up. Filthiest family on the planet. 

  • Like 16

Share this post


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

WSJ story is quite the bomb...

 

 

"Eric?  Eric who?  Oh, that Eric.  Don't really know him.  He was part of my family for a very short time.  Got coffee and picked up dog Don Jr's crap in the back yard. "

Edited by McJose
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

Imagine banging a porn star behind your wife's back and working in tandem with your son to cover it up. Filthiest family on the planet. 

You know Eric only did it because he thought it would make his parents get back together and they'd all be a happy family again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

Imagine banging a porn star behind your wife's back and working in tandem with your son to cover it up. Filthiest family on the planet. 

Somewhere, Tiffany is briefly nervous that, due to the fact that she's in a T14 law school, her father will seek her aid in making illegal payments of this sort next time.  Then she remembers that her father probably does not know that she's attending law school (and is questionable on knowing who she is) and breathes a sigh of relief.

Edited by Don Quixote
  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, McJose said:

"Eric?  Eric who?  Oh, that Eric.  Don't really know him.  He was part of my family for a very short time.  Got coffee and picked up dog crap in the back yard. "

Oh come on.

 

Donald Trump would never have a dog.

Share this post


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

Somewhere, Tiffany is briefly nervous that, due to the fact that she's in a T14 law school, her father will seek her aid in making illegal payments of this sort next time.  Then she remembers that her father probably does not know that she's attending law school (and is questionable on knowing who she is) and breathes a sigh of relief.

She seemingly is the smartest one keeping her distance from much of this mess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Oh hi, Eric.

SNL should have a field day with this one. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Oh come on.

 

Donald Trump would never have a dog.

fixed

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Hilts said:

SNL should have a field day with this one. 

The Don and Eric Trump news spots slay me. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

The Don and Eric Trump news spots slay me. 

I nearly peed myself during the Fun-Dip bit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FBI Is Investigating Florida Company Where Whitaker Was Advisory-Board Member

Active case is being handled by FBI Miami office; acting attorney general oversees FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is conducting a criminal investigation of a Florida company accused of scamming millions from customers during the period that Matthew Whitaker, the acting U.S. attorney general, served as a paid advisory-board member, according to an alleged victim who was contacted by the FBI and other people familiar with the matter.

The investigation is being handled by the Miami office of the FBI and by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, according to an email sent to the alleged victim last year by an FBI victim specialist. A recording on a phone line set up by the Justice Department to help victims said Friday the case remains active.

Mr. Whitaker, appointed Wednesday by President Trump to replace Jeff Sessions as head of the Justice Department, oversees the FBI in his new job.

Justice Department guidelines would require Mr. Whitaker to avoid any involvement in the Florida case, which relates to a company called World Patent Marketing Inc., said Stephen Gillers, an ethics expert at New York University Law School. Mr. Gillers said Mr. Whitaker “is unquestionably recused from any investigation or prosecution of World Patent Marketing.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

World Patent Marketing, based in Miami Beach, shut down last year after being accused by the Federal Trade Commission of scamming customers out of $26 million. The company charged would-be inventors thousands of dollars to patent and promote their inventions, but provided almost no real services and threatened those who complained, the FTC said.

The FTC’s action was a civil proceeding. The existence of a continuing FBI investigation suggests authorities are also looking into potential criminal charges.

An FBI spokeswoman in Washington declined to comment.

Mr. Whitaker was paid a total of $9,375 to serve as an advisory-board member of the company, according to court documents, and appeared in at least two promotional videos the firm posted on its website. He also wrote a 2015 email on the company’s behalf to an unhappy customer, citing his background as a former U.S. Attorney and threatening the customer with “serious civil and criminal consequences,” the documents show.

A December 2014 company press release quoted Mr. Whitaker as saying, “As a former US Attorney, I would only align myself with a first class organization. World Patent Marketing goes beyond making statements about doing business ‘ethically’ and translates them into action.”

The company promoted its advisory board, which included other prominent individuals besides Mr. Whitaker, to help convince customers of its bona fides, court documents show.

“That advisory board was thrown up on World Patent Marketing website as a way of luring consumers,” said Joe LoPiccolo, an attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit against World Patent Marketing, which is pending.

Some of the other people on the advisory board have said in court documents they did little or nothing for the company, and the FTC didn’t name any advisory-board members as defendants.

Mr. Whitaker was appointed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa in 2004, and held the post until 2009, when the Obama administration named a replacement. In 2014, he was defeated in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate by Joni Ernst, who later won the general election.

The FTC earlier this year settled the case with World Patent Marketing and its founder, Scott Cooper, who agreed not to promote any invention-promotion services. The FTC obtained a judgment for the full amount allegedly lost by customers—$26 million—and Mr. Cooper agreed to turn over a Miami Beach waterfront property he owned to the FTC, court records show.

Mr. Cooper and his then-wife each contributed $2,600 to Mr. Whitaker’s Senate campaign, federal election records show. The contributions were made in 2013, before the February 2014 founding of World Patent Marketing.

Neither Mr. Cooper nor his attorney responded to requests for comment.

The FBI began contacting victims of the alleged fraud at World Patent as early as June 2017. In a letter sent to one victim that was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the FBI victim specialist said that the case could “be a lengthy undertaking, and, for several reasons, we cannot tell you about its progress at this time.”

A court-appointed receiver for World Patent Marketing said several of the other advisory-board members returned fees they received from the company, but that Mr. Whitaker didn’t respond to a demand notice sent by the receiver.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current Attorney General of the United States worked for a company that is currently under investigation by the current Attorney General of the United States.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The current Attorney General of the United States worked for a company that is currently under investigation by the current Attorney General of the United States.

No mortal knows what the most "peak trump" description there will be when it's all over and done with, but this might be the leader in the clubhouse.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of course he was involved.  He’s a married man who was banging a porn star and didn’t want anyone to know and wanted to make sure she got paid off.  What do you expect? What’s the big deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The current Attorney General of the United States worked for a company that is currently under investigation by the current Attorney General of the United States.

But, we already know that company did nothing wrong - because the AG already told us so....

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.