What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (18 Viewers)

ren hoek said:
While there's a legitimate claim to conflict of interest in Trump lobbying for a Trump Tower in Moscow during a presidential campaign, I think it's incredibly weak to cite a failed deal as evidence of a much broader conspiracy.  This guy was a weightlifter with no apparent ties to the Kremlin that Cohen didn't even bother to follow up with. 
Click to expand...
Eh, there was Ivanka/Klokov, there was Trump & Jr./Agalarov, there was Cohen/Sater, and Cohen said he was making his own efforts. So that's at least four ongoing competing attempts at deals.

The point about Ivanka and Klokov isn't whether Klokov really had those ties to the Kremlin, the point is Ivanka told Cohen to contact him because she thought he did. And Cohen did not shoot it down - he and Kolkov spoke at least once and also emailed. And the reason Cohen said no wasn't because of Kolkov's claims, it was because there was already "a deal" in place, the Letter of Intent that Trump himself personally signed.

And I think this is a little bit where we get to your impression of Trump. Ok so you don't back Trump. However, would you call him ethical? Doubt it. Would you call him capable of distinguishing between and private acts based on some sort of business or political mores? Doubt it. So where is that piece? I'd think you and I would agree that Trump lacks all of these things. 

And yet this same person who was pursuing multiple strands of deals - all with the Kremlin, or so they thought - was simultaneously whitewashing Ukraine and calling for removal of sanctions. Those two things were happening at the same time.

ren hoek said:
If Trump wanted a building in Moscow, he sure didn't know how to go about leveraging his purported ties to the Kremlin to get it. 

If Russia wanted to 'cultivate' or pull one over on Trump, in the midst of a heated US election campaign, they sure didn't act like it when they gently batted them away, almost amused at their ignorance of how the Moscow real estate market actually works.  
Click to expand...
I think the first point is pretty good. Trump has had runs at building a hotel - always in Moscow - 1987, 1994 or so, again the late 90s, 2015, 2016... Yeah it's true, there's something weirdly wrong in his inability to get something built there.

The second piece is ridiculous though, everything I've ever read or heard is that yeah actually going through Peskov and even Putin himself is exactly the way to do this. If I'm not mistaken the Crocus development is being built in Moscow. And.... it's not really clear why or or really if the Trump/Agalarov deal really did fail.

- I can tell you here in Louisiana one way to do things is the old fashioned counter letter and politicians have availed themselves of it before. In that way one can have an interest in something which is not legally registered. Someone gets a share or interest in something - usually land - and it's a sort of codicil to an actual deal. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Eh, there was the Ivanka/Klokov, there was Trump & Jr./Agalarov, there was Cohen/Sater, and Cohen said he was making his own efforts. So that's at least four ongoing competing attempts at deals.

The point about Ivanka and Klokov isn't whether Klokov really had those ties to the Kremlin, the point is Ivanak told Cohen to contact him. And Cohen did not shoot it down - he and Kolkov spoke at least once and also emailed. And the reason Cohen said no wasn't because of Kolkov's claims, it was because there was already "a deal" in place, teh Letter of Intent that Trump himself personally signed,

And I think this is a little bit where we get to your impression of Trump. Ok so you don't back Trump. However, would you call him ethical? Doubt it. Would you call him capable of distinguishing between and private acts based on some sort of business or political mores? Doubt it. So where is that piece? I'd think you and I would agree that Trump lacks all of these things. 

And yet this same person who was pursuing multiple strands of deals - all with the Kremlin, or so they thought - was simultaneously whitewashing Ukraine and calling for removal of sanctions. Those two things were happening at the same time.

I think the first point is pretty good. Trump has had runs at building a hotel - always in Moscow - 1987, 1994 or so, again the late 90s, 2015, 2016... Yeah it's true, there's something weirdly wrong in his inability to get something built there.

The second piece is ridiculous though, everything I've ever read or heard is that yeah actually going through Peskov and even Putin himself is exactly the way to do this. If I'm not mistaken the Krokus development is being built in Moscow. And.... it's not really clear why or or really if the Trump/Agalarov deal really did fail.

- I can tell you here in Louisiana one way to do things is the old fashioned counter letter and politicians have availed themselves of it before. In that way one can have an interest in something which is not legally registered. Someone gets a share or interest in something - usually land - and its' a sort of codicil to an actual deal. 
Click to expand...
The most salient point I've heard on this issue is Trump was compromised the moment anyone lied about 2016, beginning with his his public campaign assurance and doubled down by others in sworn testimony. Set everything else off to the side as noise. Russia had knowledge of dishonesty (likely documented/recorded) over him from that point forward, and others after that, while he was mysteriously pushing for sanction removal. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This morning on Meet the Press, Rand Paul made the best defenses I’ve heard of Trump’s situation since Friday’s revelations. Here are his arguments in a nutshell: 

1. Regarding the campaign finance violations, Paul claims that the John Edwards case demonstrates that paying off a mistress might not be a violation. Plus he claims the rules are so convoluted that Trump might have not known them. He acknowledges that Trump has lied about all this and that’s bad, but it’s not exactly an impeachable offense: “are we really going to remove the President for paying off his mistress and lying about it?” 

2. Lying about meeting the Russians, or contacts with the Russians, is also bad. There is nothing wrong with building a Trump tower in Moscow. There would be something wrong with getting permission to do so in return for political favors. There would be something wrong with working with the Russians to interfere in the election. So far there is no evidence of either. To remove the President you need to show quid pro quo, and that either he directly knew about it or directly tried to cover it up. These standards, for Paul, have not come close to being met. 

Thoughts? 

 
On the subject of impeachment, a Democratic senator raised a timing question: first he says there should be no impeachment committee until the Mueller report is released. Now let’s suppose that happens in the summer or fall of 2019. Any impeachment process would take several months, or even a year. Would it make sense to proceed if the process continued into the election? 

I find this a fascinating question. I wonder how the Founding Fathers would have responded to this. 

 
timschochet said:
2. Lying about meeting the Russians, or contacts with the Russians, is also bad. There is nothing wrong with building a Trump tower in Moscow. There would be something wrong with getting permission to do so in return for political favors. There would be something wrong with working with the Russians to interfere in the election. So far there is no evidence of either. To remove the President you need to show quid pro quo, and that either he directly knew about it or directly tried to cover it up. These standards, for Paul, have not come close to being met. 
Click to expand...


I think he is correct here - on both accounts.  But, I will say, I think Mueller knows a lot more about this than either I, or Rand Paul, know at the moment.  Probably the biggest difference between me and Paul on this issue - he won't consider circumstantial evidence - but I will.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think he is correct here - on both accounts.  But, I will say, I think Mueller knows a lot more about this than either I, or Rand Paul, know at the moment.  Probably the biggest difference between me and Paul on this issue - he won't consider circumstantial evidence - but I will.
Click to expand...
I’m not a fan of Paul but I find him honest. I believe that if Mueller’s report directly charges Trump, Paul is the sort that will change his mind- but it had better be a clear charge. It can’t be murky. 

 
timschochet said:
This morning on Meet the Press, Rand Paul made the best defenses I’ve heard of Trump’s situation since Friday’s revelations. Here are his arguments in a nutshell: 

1. Regarding the campaign finance violations, Paul claims that the John Edwards case demonstrates that paying off a mistress might not be a violation. Plus he claims the rules are so convoluted that Trump might have not known them. He acknowledges that Trump has lied about all this and that’s bad, but it’s not exactly an impeachable offense: “are we really going to remove the President for paying off his mistress and lying about it?” 

2. Lying about meeting the Russians, or contacts with the Russians, is also bad. There is nothing wrong with building a Trump tower in Moscow. There would be something wrong with getting permission to do so in return for political favors. There would be something wrong with working with the Russians to interfere in the election. So far there is no evidence of either. To remove the President you need to show quid pro quo, and that either he directly knew about it or directly tried to cover it up. These standards, for Paul, have not come close to being met. 

Thoughts? 
Click to expand...
Did he say anything about obstruction of justice?  It seems like Trump has attempted that, and I figure that would be an impeachable offense.

 
I will also say - I think Mueller is going to build a powerful obstruction of justice case.  

And, that should be sufficient to impeach.   It is so important to the rule of law, that we not have a president who flaunts the laws, and aggressively obstructs justice.

 
Gr00vus said:
Did he say anything about obstruction of justice?  It seems like Trump has attempted that, and I figure that would be an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...
He didn’t. 

The best defense I can think of for Trump regarding this is that he doesn’t really understand that it’s a crime- he sort of proved this to be true by publicly lambasting Sessions for recusal. 

Personally I would vote to remove Trump for obstruction of justice. But I can see the argument the other way. 

 
timschochet said:
He didn’t. 

The best defense I can think of for Trump regarding this is that he doesn’t really understand that it’s a crime- he sort of proved this to be true by publicly lambasting Sessions for recusal. 

Personally I would vote to remove Trump for obstruction of justice. But I can see the argument the other way. 
Click to expand...
How could he not understand that? And even if he didn't, I don't think ignorance would absolve him of responsibility. He needs to know the propriety and consequences of his actions in office. That's his job. If he can't do this job without committing crimes - knowingly or unknowingly - he needs to be removed from office.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
How could he not understand that? And even if he didn't, I don't think ignorance would absolve him of responsibility. He needs to know the propriety and consequences of his actions in office. That's his job.
Click to expand...
I agree. I would add this specific as well: before he asked Comey to go easy on Flynn, he ordered everyone else to leave the room. To me that proves understanding of bad behavior. 

But you and I won’t be the ones deciding this. Republican senators just need to have arguments against removal that sound reasonable to the public. Lack of understanding is one of them. 

 
timschochet said:
This morning on Meet the Press, Rand Paul made the best defenses I’ve heard of Trump’s situation since Friday’s revelations. Here are his arguments in a nutshell: 

1. Regarding the campaign finance violations, Paul claims that the John Edwards case demonstrates that paying off a mistress might not be a violation. Plus he claims the rules are so convoluted that Trump might have not known them. He acknowledges that Trump has lied about all this and that’s bad, but it’s not exactly an impeachable offense: “are we really going to remove the President for paying off his mistress and lying about it?” 

2. Lying about meeting the Russian mobsters, or contacts with the Russian mobsters is also bad. There is nothing wrong with building a Trump tower in Moscow. There would be something wrong with getting permission to do so in return for political favors. There would be something wrong with working with the Russians to interfere in the election. So far there is no evidence of either. To remove the President you need to show quid pro quo, and that either he directly knew about it or directly tried to cover it up. These standards, for Paul, have not come close to being met. 

Thoughts? 
Click to expand...
Thoughts

 
timschochet said:
I agree. I would add this specific as well: before he asked Comey to go easy on Flynn, he ordered everyone else to leave the room. To me that proves understanding of bad behavior. 

But you and I won’t be the ones deciding this. Republican senators just need to have arguments against removal that sound reasonable to the public. Lack of understanding is one of them. 
Click to expand...
Too ignorant and lazy to perform the role is a reasonable argument for removal. I think it imperative in fact.

 
timschochet said:
On the subject of impeachment, a Democratic senator raised a timing question: first he says there should be no impeachment committee until the Mueller report is released. Now let’s suppose that happens in the summer or fall of 2019. Any impeachment process would take several months, or even a year. Would it make sense to proceed if the process continued into the election? 

I find this a fascinating question. I wonder how the Founding Fathers would have responded to this. 
Click to expand...
The founding fathers would have removed him from office long ago. 

 
For what it’s worth, Rand Paul is ideologically opposed to most campaign finance laws.  It’s completely within his interest to describe them as convoluted.  Future White House counsel Don McGahn worked on the Trump campaign and is a former commissioner for the FEC.  Is there any evidence that Trump bothered to ask him if this stuff was legal?  

 
timschochet said:
Gr00vus said:
Did he say anything about obstruction of justice?  It seems like Trump has attempted that, and I figure that would be an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...
He didn’t. 

The best defense I can think of for Trump regarding this is that he doesn’t really understand that it’s a crime- he sort of proved this to be true by publicly lambasting Sessions for recusal. 

Personally I would vote to remove Trump for obstruction of justice. But I can see the argument the other way. 
Click to expand...
Ok, let's say he didn't understand that it was a crime at that point. What about now? Don't you think he's been told over and over that he could be putting himself in jeopardy by all of his public statements since then?

 
honky kong said:
Ok, let's say he didn't understand that it was a crime at that point. What about now? Don't you think he's been told over and over that he could be putting himself in jeopardy by all of his public statements since then?
Click to expand...
Yeah, you’d think his team of lawyers, TV layers, and “lawyers” should have informed him of all the laws he’s breaking by now. 

 
timschochet said:
On the subject of impeachment, a Democratic senator raised a timing question: first he says there should be no impeachment committee until the Mueller report is released. Now let’s suppose that happens in the summer or fall of 2019. Any impeachment process would take several months, or even a year. Would it make sense to proceed if the process continued into the election? 

I find this a fascinating question. I wonder how the Founding Fathers would have responded to this. 
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure they have you on ignore

 
Trump has been implicated, and possibly identified in court papers, as committing one, two, possibly more felonies and people are asking us to forgive him because he is not very smart? GTFO with this mumbo jumbo. In all of the bad precedents that McConnel and the Republicans have set in the past ~5 years, some are asking us to let go a few broken laws because a guy is not very smart? Again, GTFO with that bull####.

Rand Paul and McConnel can both go back to Kentucky and wallow in their pity, if that is what they want. Both are complete jokes of human beings.

 
timschochet said:
Regarding the campaign finance violations, Paul claims that the John Edwards case demonstrates that paying off a mistress might not be a violation. Plus he claims the rules are so convoluted that Trump might have not known them. He acknowledges that Trump has lied about all this and that’s bad, but it’s not exactly an impeachable offense: “are we really going to remove the President for paying off his mistress and lying about it?” 
Click to expand...
I saw this piece and it was totally disingenuous. What he claimed was that golly every politician would be indicted following this. Total lie.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
For what it’s worth, Rand Paul is ideologically opposed to most campaign finance laws.  It’s completely within his interest to describe them as convoluted.  Future White House counsel Don McGahn worked on the Trump campaign and is a former commissioner for the FEC.  Is there any evidence that Trump bothered to ask him if this stuff was legal?  
Click to expand...
McGahn was totally excluded from all this, so were other norm lawyers. That’s the point. Normals would have guided them to do it on the books albeit maybe vaguely. 

This is the stuff I wonder if McGahn knew about.

 
timschochet said:
1. Regarding the campaign finance violations, Paul claims that the John Edwards case demonstrates that paying off a mistress might not be a violation.
Click to expand...
I get that this is the main talking point from Trump's defenders, but it's total nonsense. If they're saying that the Edwards and Trump cases are very similar, their  talking point actually says the opposite of what they think it does. By taking such a high profile case to trial, it pretty much assures us that the DOJ thinks this is a crime (also by accepting Cohen's guilty plea they're saying they think it's a crime). US Attorneys have a ton of discretion, but I cannot imagine that indicting and taking to trial John Edwards wasn't approved by Main Justice.

The result of the Edwards case doesn't say any more than if I'm found not guilty of murder says anything about the applicability of a homicide statute. Cases at the trial level rise and fall on their own facts. They are not binding on anyone or anything else. If the government had convicted Edwards and an appellate court had overturned the conviction, there would be some binding precedent that would control new cases. That doesn't exist here. 

By saying this is just like the Edwards case you're saying that you agree that the DOJ thinks this is a crime. Just because your local drug dealer is found not guilty of dealing meth, doesn't mean meth is now legal. That's what the Trump talking point is trying to get you to believe. It's not how this works. It's not how any of this works.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I had never heard the theory that Dershowitz was compromised into defending Trump until I read it on this board, but watching him these past couple of days shill for Trump using the most shallow arguments, I can't help but think of Godfather II and Senator Geary defending Michael at the hearings.

 
Rirruto said:
I get that this is the main talking point from Trump's defenders, but it's total nonsense. If they're saying that the Edwards and Trump cases are very similar, their  talking point actually says the opposite of what they think it does. By taking such a high profile case to trial, it pretty much assures us that the DOJ thinks this is a crime (also by accepting Cohen's guilty plea they're saying they think it's a crime). US Attorneys have a ton of discretion, but I cannot imagine that indicting and taking to trial John Edwards wasn't approved by Main Justice.

The result of the Edwards case doesn't say any more than if I'm found not guilty of murder says anything about the applicability of a homicide statute. Cases at the trial level rise and fall on their own facts. They are not binding on anyone or anything else. If the government had convicted Edwards and an appellate court had overturned the conviction, there would be some binding precedent that would control new cases. That doesn't exist here. 

By saying this is just like the Edwards case you're saying that you agree that the DOJ thinks this is a crime. Just because your local drug dealer is found not guilty of dealing meth doesn't mean meth is now legal. That's what the Trump talking point is trying to get you to believe. It's not how this works. It's not how any of this works.
Click to expand...
Damn good posting. Makes total sense about the trial level cases not creating precedent. I didn't know that, and I would bet that most non lawyers don't know what either.  That's gonna be a tough sell to those that are inclined to align with the President.  They don't want to hear about the way the system works if they think he's being railroaded.

The ironic thing is that the sitting POTUS is the least likely person to be railroaded in this entire country.

 
timschochet said:
Lying about meeting the Russians, or contacts with the Russians, is also bad. There is nothing wrong with building a Trump tower in Moscow. There would be something wrong with getting permission to do so in return for political favors. There would be something wrong with working with the Russians to interfere in the election. So far there is no evidence of either. To remove the President you need to show quid pro quo, and that either he directly knew about it or directly tried to cover it up. These standards, for Paul, have not come close to being met. 
Click to expand...
Also terrible. The lie they tell purposefully moves the events to pre-January 2016, before Trump became the presumptive and actual nominee. They know the reason for this lie. And it’s a blatant one, to misdirect the investigation from the issue. We know this because OSC actually says this in their status memo.

Same pattern with the mistress NDAs. Trump told the public he had no idea and it was all Cohen’s idea, and then Giuliani said there was a reimbursement and a retainer agreement. Look at the memo, investigation revealed there was no retainer, no fee structure. It’s all a huge blatant lie and they did it to avoid the investigation. Criminals do this,.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m not a lawyer but I’ve heard (and I believe) that ignorance of a crime is not a viable defense. Whether Trump knows what comprises obstruction of justice or campaign finance violations is immaterial.

 
timschochet said:
He didn’t. 

The best defense I can think of for Trump regarding this is that he doesn’t really understand that it’s a crime- he sort of proved this to be true by publicly lambasting Sessions for recusal. 

Personally I would vote to remove Trump for obstruction of justice. But I can see the argument the other way. 
Click to expand...
I think you mean "he doesn't really care that it's a crime."

 
I am starting to come around on the idea that Trump will not finish his term as President.

Now, it may be a technicality, because he could wait until the day or two before inauguration in 2021 - but I think he is taking a big risk in not getting a pardon for himself before a Democratic President takes office.  So, even assuming he is not impeached/convicted - I think he will ask Pence to pardon him, after Trump resigns.  Pence would presumably do that "in the best interests of the country", even if he were only president for one day.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I am starting to come around on the idea that Trump will not finish his term as President.

Now, it may be a technicality, because he could wait until the day or two before inauguration in 2021 - but I think he is taking a big risk in not getting a pardon for himself before a Democratic President takes office.  So, even assuming he is not impeached/convicted - I think he will ask Pence to pardon him, after Trump resigns.  Pence would presumably do that "in the best interests of the country", even if he were only president for one day.
Click to expand...
I still think Pence is mired in transition indiscretions that will neuter his ability to serve.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
197
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 16 (members: 0, guests: 16)
Top