Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[Hlafordlaes]

... The arrogance of these fools is amazing.

My guess is that they are all counting on pardons for the guilty and a mass firing of anyone not kissing Trump's ring in the Justice Dept/FBI/CIA/Defense. The GOP has clearly lost all pretense of supporting in the rule of law, and is absolutely giddy at the idea of a right-wing takeover of government, so who, exactly, will stop Trump when he does go after Mueller? GOP donors!!!???

 

[Childlike Empress]

"Obviously because" hardly meets the standard of evidence an academic would expect, does it?

It's obvious because it's in the book. Pay attention to what is said.

 

[Trebuchet]

In a court filing, Special Counsel Mueller says Manafort has violated the conditions of his bail by ghostwriting an op-ed with a Russian with known ties to Russian intelligence services.​

The arrogance of these fools is amazing.

"The BEST people...."

 

[Stacko]

2016 RNC Delegate: Trump Directed Change To Party Platform On Ukraine Support

President Trump may have been involved with a change to the Republican Party campaign platform last year that watered down support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine, according to new information from someone who was involved.

Diana Denman, a Republican delegate who supported arming U.S. allies in Ukraine, has told people that Trump aide J.D. Gordon said at the Republican Convention in 2016 that Trump directed him to support weakening that position in the official platform.

Ultimately, the softer position was adopted.

Denman is scheduled to meet this week with the House and Senate Intelligence committees to discuss what she saw, said two sources familiar with the briefings.

 

[Crossbow]

The law is definitely not objective. A judge is not even allowed to provide jurors a definition if they ask what reasonable doubt is.

You are wrong again.

 

[Stacko]

Fredo's in trouble.

Donald Trump Jr. asked a Russian lawyer at the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting whether she had evidence of illegal donations to the Clinton Foundation, the lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee in answers to written questions obtained exclusively by NBC News.

The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, told the committee that she didn't have any such evidence, and that she believes Trump misunderstood the nature of the meeting after receiving emails from a music promoter promising incriminating information on Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump's Democratic opponent.

Once it became apparent that she did not have meaningful information about Clinton, Trump seemed to lose interest, Veselnitskaya said, and the meeting petered out.

...

Though some may see her answers as self-serving, Veselnitskaya's written answers reinforced what has long been understood about the Trump Tower meeting: that Donald Trump Jr. accepted it on the promise of incriminating information about Clinton that he had been told was coming from the Russian government. And he asked Veselnitskaya directly whether she had it, according to her written answers. Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort were also in attendance, as were a Russian lobbyist, a Russian businessman and a translator.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You are wrong again.

Nope, check out Illinois. If a jury asks for the definition of reasonable doubt, state law is not cool with a judge giving one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fredo's in trouble.

Hard to square with the email exchange, the list of attendees and Trump's announcement of something about Clinton to be revealed soon that happened just after the meeting.

It conveniently matches Jr's excuses and Daddy's reply written for Jr made before Jr's emails revealed he was lying.

 

[chrispy]

Fredo's in trouble.

But...but...the didn't actually get any info, so it doesn't matter!

It's like telling the judge, ''Sure, I shot him, but he didn't die, so...''

 

[JohnnyG]

Republican primary candidates paid to generate said Russian dirt.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

Which one(s)? And When?

It has been reported that the Washington Free Beacon funded Fusion GPS up until the spring in 2016. Then, in April, 2016, Perkins Coie, on behalf of the Clinton Campaign and DNC, retained them to continue. It wasn't until June, 2016 that Christopher Steele was contracted for the Russian dirt.

What am I missing?

 

[CapelDodger]

The law is definitely not objective. A judge is not even allowed to provide jurors a definition if they ask what reasonable doubt is.

Reasonable doubt applies to the case made, not to the law which defines the crime.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Reasonable doubt applies to the case made, not to the law which defines the crime.

That makes sense. Then what is a word for objective but outside of the ability of humans to apply without full information?

 

[CapelDodger]

Republican primary candidates paid to generate said Russian dirt.

Finding dirt is not the same as generating it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Finding dirt is not the same as generating it.

But do we know which one it was?

 

[CapelDodger]

That makes sense. Then what is a word for objective but outside of the ability of humans to apply without full information?

Justice and the law are different things.

 

[beren]

But do we know which one it was?

Can we really know anything?

What if the way I perceive yellow is how you perceive blue?

 

[CapelDodger]

But do we know which one it was?

Can we actually know anything?

ETA :Ninja'd, damn it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Can we actually know anything?

Probably not.

 

[Minoosh]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...p-accounts-source-idUSKBN1DZ0XN?ref=hvper.com

getting down to the money trail

From that article it's actually impossible to tell if a subpoena has been issued.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes but... Perhaps Mueller is even more clever than he seems, and he seems very clever.

Reuters: Trump lawyer denies Deutsche Bank got subpoena on Trump accounts

According to Maddow reporting tonight, the subpoena was for accounts connected to Trump rather than Trump's accounts directly.

What I think, if you ask for accounts connected to but not directly Trump's accounts, guess what? You don't need to notify Trump or his attorneys and they cannot then seek injunctions.