Jump to content

TahoeHorn

banned
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

Everything posted by TahoeHorn

  1. I believe most of the facts I see or read reported. I don't think the NYT lies and rarely gets their facts wrong. But facts are presented selectively. They present the facts they like. I have to find the facts they don't like somewhere else. And I lot of what I see or read is opinion. I can tell the difference between facts and opinion. We have relatively few conclusive facts in the Trump Russia thing. We know that Russia messed with us. We know a bunch of people have been indicted by people with the reputation of being highly professional. We know Trump has repeatedly lied and engaged in extremely suspicious and inappropriate behavior. And we have some selected minor details like the Trump Tower meeting. But, big picture, we don't know shit. An awful lot of smoke emanating from a spot across town, and maybe something that looks like a flame every now and then but we haven't seen enough to say the building on 123 Main is on fire. The Trump building is over there underneath the smoke. The smoke probably comes from a fire. But we can't say the Trump building is on fire. I'm going to wait on film at eleven. We'll know. In the meantime I'll speculate, but no decisions till I see film at eleven. If I don't get my film, though, I'll be pissed.
  2. Yeah, but how smart so you have to be? It's like saying "Ah ha! That 60 second segment on TV is Proctor and Gamble trying to sell me soap!" It's the kind of thing you're supposed to know by about four. I think 99% of what we hear on this is from somebody who has a bias.
  3. The defendant is conducting a propaganda campaign. Isn't that always the case? And here, the real jury will be by the public. How can you expect otherwise?
  4. I won't argue for, or against this, your core argument. I do think, however, as a layman, that it makes sense to have Mueller prosecute Manafort. The basic idea behind the special counsel is to have him investigate things which the Executive Branch is not "enough" independent. I don't think that there's any question that this meets the test even if the crimes themselves don't.
  5. Manafort was campaign manager - clearly part of Mueller's mandate. And prosecutors by the thousands use one crime as leverage against another and one target as leverage against another. Are you suggesting that Mueller shouldn't have this power? The guy prosecuting a homicide can cut a deal with somebody accused of prosecution to get their testimony. Why shouldn't the guy investigating campaign violations be able to use bank fraud?
  6. Do you think that's why Cohen's offices and home were raided?
  7. I don't have a specific theory. I don't know the facts. The facts are not in the public domain. I'm saying (and I have quite a bit of experience in this matter) that Trump won't be able to retroactively fix the financial records. He'll have to live with the facts as they exist. So, for EXAMPLE, if they created a bogus hotel bill to "funnel" money to Cohen from the campaign there will be records that prove that. The $35K retainer will be a standard thing or it will be suspiciously created. Trump can tell a story at a high level about hotel bills but when financial experts start pouring through records and prosecutors start deposing hotel maids about why their signature is on a mini-bar bill and it doesn't look like their signature and they weren't paid for that time period and ... then high level hotel people decide they'd rather piss off the Trump Org bosses than lie to the feds. Whether the prosecution lawyers can communicate that would be the issue. I do not say that Trump did "funnel" money from the campaign to Cohen, nor do I say there were bogus hotel bills. I say that Mueller will know the truth and have hard evidence of it. The only question will be how the story plays in public. P.S. Let me say it differently. If Cohen was repaid $130K he almost certainly wasn't paid with a payment from Trump himself that said reimbursement for money you paid for Stormy's silence. He will have been repaid through something bogus. There will be problems with the paper trail that can't be fixed. There will be bogus transactions that will probably be, in and of themselves, a problem. And if Cohen wasn't repaid that's a problem too. Look, if they had a story that could play we would have heard it. They've tried stories that didn't work and walked them back. And now that the feds have documents they don't know what to do. That we do know.
  8. Here's the best: http://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/140-hillary-clinton-will-never-be-president/&page=2&tab=comments#comment-50943
  9. But are there other records? Records that either support the Trump narrative or contradict it? Are there, for example, records of $130K in bogus billings from Trump Org to Trump campaign?
  10. I have two (related) reasons: 1. Unless they are utter idiots they fund organizations which address their goals and stay a million miles away from the details of operations. 2. That's far, far afield from Mueller's mandate. Mueller's mandate is not to address every left-wing wet dream. He's not going to come across any crime by the Mercers. If some PPAC they fund is doing something shady he'll refer it.
  11. There are other theoretical threats. If he engaged in financial misdeeds there could be a threat to his whole financial empire.
  12. Your guess may be as good as mine. But I can tell you that there will be records. And the records will tell a compelling story. Cohen will have received a special $130K or not. It will have come from the campaign or from Trump (or no payment). Trump's team may be able to spin uncomfortable facts, but I doubt it. The problem for both sides is that there will be lots of paper trails. The problem for Trump is that he won't be able to fix the facts. The problem for Mueller is that explaining how this hotel bill which was signed by a hotel accountant who said he was told by his boss ... takes some good lawyering when pitted against a spinmaster.
  13. Mercers? They don't talk to anybody. You've been reading people who'll name the Koch Brothers and the NRA next.
  14. The electoral strategy was, is, and will be, to conduct public relations a day at a time. If a story is bad he creates a new story. "Nobody" thought it would work. It did. He won't change that. I don't think he could if he wanted to. No strategy. Every day is a new story with little regard for a need to be consistent with yesterday's story. Hey, I thought this would blow up almost immediately. So did the other 16 GOP candidates. So did the media. So did the Dems, especially Hillary. It didn't blow up. we were wrong. Don't think for a minute that he will change his modus operandi. It's been burned into his DNA.
  15. Forget Stormy Daniels for a moment. Was the Trump Organization submitting bogus bills to the Trump campaign? Is that $129,999.72 bogus? I don't think you have to prove it was for Stormy to be a problem. And if that $130K is bogus I'd think you could start looking for other examples of bogus billing or overbilling.
  16. The bigger question would be to understand the services provided for those billings. Who sent the invoice (if there is one) and what services are detailed? For example for a hotel bill of $18,731.90 I'd want to know what rooms, what food, who was in the rooms and so on. When the FBI asks the hotel to turn over its records it'll be crystal clear whether the $18,731.90 checks out down to the maid's signature and affirmation on the mini-bar bill for room 1631. It'll be totally bogus or it'll check out.
  17. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/04/trump-michael-cohen-lawyer-cooley-law-school-218318
  18. Typically ten dozen with assorted glaze and four dozen chocolate glaze. The assorted gaze have three chocolate, three maple, three vanilla (white) and three kind of clear (I don't know what it is).
  19. I have an impact on things here in Alabama politics because, if I may be so bold, I have the good sense to know how to work with people I disagree with. I can "disagree without being disagreeable". I can be trusted. Some time I go one on six and geet my way. But not often. And if I go away or start being an ass do you think the GOP gets better or worse? Politics is filled with people who are "principled". It's their way or nothing. So it's always nothing. I have my principles, but I think long and hard about how to get the most out of the hand I'm dealt. It doesn't bother me that you disagree. I come here to hear different ideas.
  20. You think I'm defending the GOP. I"m not. I'm giving my views, for entertainment on the Internet. I have no desire to try to win some Internet prize. I have a long list of views, many of which do not comport with the GOP at large. But here, there's nothing to win or lose. It's like playing chess or solitaire against the computer. I don't really win or lose. I just amuse myself. I don't keep track of what games I win or lose. I just play. This is play. I have absolutely no illusion that I will help or hurt the GOP by giving you my views. I spend a dozen or so hours a month working on behalf of the GOP. None of it is here. This is pure amusement. P.S. I also discuss issues like who Cleveland should have picked in the fourth spot in the NFL draft. I don't really care. I won't even watch Cleveland play. I don't know who they have at DB now. It's just amusement. Guessing who did it on Law and Order is amusement. I'm not upset if I guess wrong. It just means the writer and I think differently. Some of you seem mad. i'm not. I like to speculate, like who should get picked number four by Cleveland. It's not real to me though. I believe them. But I'm under no illusion that you will change your mind, or that Cleveland will select who I think they should. I don't think you, Mueller or Cleveland's GM give a shit about my opinion. I think the Longhorn head coach is good but the WR coach isn't. Am I "defending" the head coach? Maybe. But I don't think of it that way. I'm just an Internet dweeb with an opinion that probably nobody cares about. I will not influence the results on the field. Not by posting on the Internet. You may want to talk with me about the merits of the WR coach. Or not. It's just entertainment. I do not know why you'd think I would lie about who I thought Cleveland should pick or who the WR coach should be? What would be the point? Only an idiot would do that. There are idiots posting, but why would you engage them? If you think somebody is lying about their ideas for the fourth pick what are you trying to do? How is it fun?
  21. I knew he lied a long time ago. Trump lies non-stop. It isn't news. Regarding health, and I'll add finances, I think there should be a Constitutional Amendment or legislation (I'm not sure what is legal), requiring an independent assessment of health and finances of all Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, at least one year prior to the election. I think there should also be a requirement for "all" assets to be put in a blind and independent trust (and blind will mean selling the ones he has and using the money differently and no communication with the trustee). I think Trump's conflicts of interest are one of my biggest concerns. I stated this a couple of years ago and continue to believe it. I think we'd be horrified to know the deals he's doing (e.g. muscling foreign governments to use his hotels, selling assets at inflated prices).
  22. My write-in vote had the same practical effect as not voting. Most of the GOP voters with my views just stayed home. There were no other races or issues on the ballot.
  23. Roy Moore lost in Alabama. Fact. In ALABAMA. The slot machine had to have seven cherries and it got seven cherries. One of the cherries was people like Senator McConnell, Senator Shelby and me saying "I'm out of here". There were six other cherries on the slot dial. But Jones needed all seven to win. And a number of you were quite clear that the GOP would stand rock solid behind Moore. They didn't. And a lot of people who voted for Moore, and I mean a lot, were totally disgusted. In summary, your reading of the GOP was WRONG. People everywhere have a sense of what disgusts them. The standard isn't incredibly different. If your next door neighbor who has been your buddy for ten years lies under oath for having sex with an inter, he's probably still your buddy. If he was laundering millions of Russian mob money he isn't. You cut ties. If Trump did something which would cause you to cut ties with your long-time buddy if he did it, then Trump will get tossed. I believe that. Diddling 14 year old girls 35 years ago will cause you to cut ties. Bragging about sexual conquests won't. You know the list. Most things are clear. I believe that the GOP will dump Trump if he did something which disgusts the average American - something that would cause you to cut ties with your fishing buddy. Of course I'd think running off and leaving a girl to drown would have disgusted the people of Massachusetts. It didn't. So maybe people are not as I think. We'll see.
×
×
  • Create New...