Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump tweets

Judge Ken Starr, former Solicitor Generel & Independent Counsel, just stated that, after two years, “there is no evidence or proof of collusion” & further that “there is no evidence that there was a campaign financing violation involving the President.” Thank you Judge. @FoxNews
 
newyorkguy said:
I think the base line to this is -- which I have a feeling we are eventually going to get to -- is Trump got Russian financing since at least the mid-2000s and at least some of the funds were money that is traceable back to the billions of dollars embezzled by various Russian officials from the Russian public.
Click to expand...

Mid-90s.

The long-term consequences of that probably keeps Putin awake at night.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that.
 
It's not often you see a President call someone cooperating with law enforcement a “rat”
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It's not often you see a President call someone cooperating with law enforcement a “rat”
Click to expand...

His only knowledge of these types of things come from his “legitimate business” career and his father’s. Both of which were largely Mob-funded.
Sure, Donnie switched from the American Mob to the Russians, but the attitude toward the enforcement of the law remains the same.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweets

Judge Ken Starr, former Solicitor Generel & Independent Counsel, just stated that, after two years, “there is no evidence or proof of collusion” & further that “there is no evidence that there was a campaign financing violation involving the President.” Thank you Judge. @FoxNews
Click to expand...

The good thing about these little nuggets of goodness for Trump is that they might mollify him into not rashly stomping about in a tantrum of firings.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweets

Judge Ken Starr, former Solicitor Generel & Independent Counsel, just stated that, after two years, “there is no evidence or proof of collusion” & further that “there is no evidence that there was a campaign financing violation involving the President.” Thank you Judge. @FoxNews
Click to expand...

Well, I can’t say I’m surprised he’d be grateful to the former President of Rape University. Probably feels quite the kinship with him.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweets

Judge Ken Starr, former Solicitor Generel & Independent Counsel, just stated that, after two years, “there is no evidence or proof of collusion” & further that “there is no evidence that there was a campaign financing violation involving the President.” Thank you Judge. @FoxNews
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. His attorney said he did. If you think that is bad evidence, it is still evidence.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
That is making a claim about the contents. Skepticism is not making that claim.

You seem to not grasp that when I reject your conclusions, I'm not endorsing any competing conclusions.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you understand what skepticism is Bob.

Just because we don't know what are the details of what has been redacted we can easily conclude that it is important or it wouldn't be mentioned at all. I don't believe that is a reach. Now of course it's possible it's not. But if your opponent is sacrificing a piece, it's probable that he has something more valuable in mind.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't believe you understand what skepticism is Bob.

Just because we don't know what are the details of what has been redacted we can easily conclude that it is important or it wouldn't be mentioned at all. I don't believe that is a reach. Now of course it's possible it's not. But if your opponent is sacrificing a piece, it's probable that he has something more valuable in mind.
Click to expand...

I doubt you have the research to prove that is true. When has there been a formal study on the subject?
 
How much do we know about the 'other' collusionists? The Russians? For instance the motives behind the 2016 campaign hacking.
It wasn’t a strategic operation,” says Andrei Soldatov, a Russian journalist with deep sources in the security services, who writes about the Kremlin’s use of cybertechnology. “Given what everyone on the inside has told me,” he says, hacking the U.S. political system “was a very emotional, tactical decision. People were very upset about the Panama Papers.”

The original aim was to embarrass and damage Hillary Clinton, to sow dissension, and to show that American democracy is just as corrupt as Russia’s, if not worse. “No one believed in Trump, not even a little bit,” Soldatov says. “It was a series of tactical operations. At each moment, the people who were doing this were filled with excitement over how well it was going, and that success pushed them to go even further.” The Atlantic
Click to expand...

Vladimir Putin is not untouchable. He could fall.
Gleb Pavlovsky, a political consultant who helped Putin win his first presidential campaign, in 2000, and served as a Kremlin adviser until 2011, simply laughed when I asked him about Putin’s role in Donald Trump’s election. “We did an amazing job in the first decade of Putin’s rule of creating the illusion that Putin controls everything in Russia,” he said. “Now it’s just funny” how much Americans attribute to him.
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
Only applicable to hypotheses that are supported by evidence.
Click to expand...

This IS an hypothesis and the evidence is the redacted pages. As I said, it's a wrapped Christmas present. It says there is more. You're 100 percent right we don't know what it contains but we can reasonaby surmise it's not empty. But hey, believe what you want. I'm done.
 
President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani insisted Sunday that Trump didn’t know about hacked Democratic emails before Wikileaks published the emails during the 2016 campaign — but also, that Trump wouldn’t be in legal trouble if he had known in advance about the emails.


“Did Roger Stone ever give the President a heads up on Wikileaks leaks concerning Hillary Clinton and the DNC?” ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos asked Giuliani in an interview Sunday.

“No he didn’t,” Giuliani said. “I don’t believe so.”

“But again,” he continued, “if Roger Stone gave anybody a heads up about Wikileaks leaks, that’s not a crime. It would be like giving him a heads up that the Times is going to print something.”
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
acbytesla said:
This IS an hypothesis and the evidence is the redacted pages. As I said, it's a wrapped Christmas present. It says there is more. You're 100 percent right we don't know what it contains but we can reasonaby surmise it's not empty. But hey, believe what you want. I'm done.
Click to expand...

You need evidence on how often redactions are meaningful.
 
The Big Dog said:
What criminal statute did that violate?
Click to expand...


Its not a criminal statute, but it is a federal offence.

5 § 2634.201
(b)New entrants.

(1) Within 30 days of assuming a public filer position or office described in § 2634.202 of this subpart, an individual shall file a public financial disclosure report containing the information prescribed in subpart C of this part.


5 § 2634.202 Public filer defined.
The term public filer includes:

(a) The President;

(b) The Vice President;

(c) Each officer or employee in the executive branch, including a special Government employee as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a), whose position is classified above GS-15 of the General Schedule prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 5332, or the rate of basic pay for which is fixed, other than under the General Schedule, at a rate equal to or greater than 120% of the minimum rate of basic pay for GS-15 of the General Schedule; each member of a uniformed service whose pay grade is at or in excess of O-7 under 37 U.S.C. 201; and each officer or employee in any other position determined by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics to be of equal classification;

5 § 2634.105 Definitions.
(j)Income means all income from whatever source derived. It includes but is not limited to the following items: earned income such as compensation for services, fees, commissions, salaries, wages and similar items; gross income derived from business (and net income if the individual elects to include it); gains derived from dealings in property including capital gains; interest; rents; royalties; dividends; annuities; income from the investment portion of life insurance and endowment contracts; pensions; income from discharge of indebtedness; distributive share of partnership income; and income from an interest in an estate or trust. The term includes all income items, regardless of whether they are taxable for Federal income tax purposes, such as interest on municipal bonds. Generally, income means “gross income” as determined in conformity with the Internal Revenue Service principles at 26 CFR 1.61-1 through 1.61-15 and 1.61-21.

(n)Reimbursement means any payment or other thing of value received by the reporting individual (other than gifts, as defined in paragraph (h) of this section) to cover travel-related expenses of such individual, other than those which are:

(1) Provided by the United States Government, the District of Columbia, or a State or local government or political subdivision thereof;

(2) Required to be reported by the reporting individual under 5 U.S.C. 7342 (the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act); or

(3) Required to be reported under section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ( 2 U.S.C. 434) (relating to reports of campaign contributions).

​


Upshot: Flynn was required to include the payments he received from Russian and Turkish sources in his financial disclosure as part of his appointment to a job in the Executive Branch. He did not do so, ergo, he broke the Law.

Pro tip: This may only be a process violation to you, but for mine, members of the Executive Branch should not be breaking the Law at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom