The Robert Mueller Investigation

[TwiceHorn 31452]

18 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Dude no it’s not. This level of corruption is unprecedented. Just stop

You honestly believe ATT and Novartis just, for the first time ever, approached some confidante/hack and paid six-seven figures for access to or info on the President-elect?  A completely novel idea resulting from the fact that Trump is a corrupt hack?

I didn't say it wasn't unprecedented.  But I think it's naive to believe that a species of it hasn't been ongoing for decades.  Greater pains have been taken to keep it on the qt or more facially legal.  And, of course, a more competent apparatus helps prevent investigations that uncover it.

Edited May 20, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Being cynical about American politicians =/= giving Trump a pass in any way shape or form.  Trump is a cautionary tale.  ATT and Novartis didn't approach Cohen to purchase influence or access because of anything peculiar to Trump, it's because that is SOP.

They didn't approach Cohen. Cohen approached them. SOP is to contribute to the campaign to get access or to pay lobbyists. Not to pay the president's personal attorney who also happens to be paying hush money to porn stars. 

Or do you have dirt on Harriet Miers the rest of us haven't heard?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You honestly believe ATT and Novartis just, for the first time ever, approached some confidante/hack and paid six-seven figures for access to or info on the President-elect?  A completely novel idea resulting from the fact that Trump is a corrupt hack?

I didn't say it wasn't unprecedented.  But I think it's naive to believe that a species of it hasn't been ongoing for decades.  Greater pains have been taken to keep it on the qt or more facially legal.  And, of course, a more competent apparatus helps prevent investigations that uncover it.

I think buying a friend for their access is common.   I don't think it is common to buy a politician's paid representative, with the money enriching the politician directly and personally.   And that's only one small sliver of the corruption we are seeing. 

[ndawg 1242]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Being cynical about American politicians =/= giving Trump a pass in any way shape or form.  Trump is a cautionary tale.  ATT and Novartis didn't approach Cohen to purchase influence or access because of anything peculiar to Trump, it's because that is SOP.

You were lulled into a line of reasoning that justified taking the focus off of the corruption of the Trump administration. Think about that for a second.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

8 minutes ago, ndawg said:

You were lulled into a line of reasoning that justified taking the focus off of the corruption of the Trump administration. Think about that for a second.

I'm not lulled by anything.  I have harbored this level of cynicism about American politics and politicians for a long time.  A decade at least.

 

Also, while I am relatively confident that most other campaigns have been smart enough not to take foreign money or quid pro quo, or other illegal contributions, I have little doubt that they didn't find some more "legal" or not grotesquely illegal way to accept the money or the benefit offered unlawfully at the outset.

 

And whether approached by Cohen or any other candidate-lackey or they sought it out themselves, you know all of these corporate purchasers of "insight" are hoping some of that money makes its way to the candidate/elect or to their benefit.  It was either Novartis or ATT or both that said the Cohen deal was one of several "insight" arrangements they had made.  Gross.

 

Make no mistake, I'm not discussing this to minimize Trump.  But it offers a window on what kind of things corporate, foreign, and other interests seem to think they can get away with in the US political system.

Edited May 20, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45903]

Sure.  I get it.  We've never actually heard of this kind of payment in the past, but once it's revealed that our boy was part of it, suddenly we're all "yeah, I've figured this kind of thing is de rigeur in DC forever".

And by "we" I mean "you".

[texas08 1599]

Fuck it. I look forward to the massive parties that are gonna occur when Dotard and the rest of those traitors are in prison. Finna be lit.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sure.  I get it.  We've never actually heard of this kind of payment in the past, but once it's revealed that our boy was part of it, suddenly we're all "yeah, I've figured this kind of thing is de rigeur in DC forever".

And by "we" I mean "you".

Whatever.  Trump is a unique, shitstained snowflake.

[ndawg 1242]

"By no means am I minimizing how awful it was for Trump to take a shit on my living room couch. I'm just saying, all other politicians take a shit on my living room couch, too. Believe me, I'm not letting Trump off the hook for that massive dookie he left on my sofa. I'm just saying, it opened my eyes to just how often these politicians are just dropping their drawers and unloading their burrito remnants on living room couches. I've long been suspicious that they're doing it, and now that Trump has taken a shit on my couch, I have proof that they all do it, all the time."

Edited May 20, 2018 by ndawg

[TwiceHorn 31452]

1 minute ago, ndawg said:

"By no means am I minimizing how awful it was for Trump to take a shit on my living room couch. I'm just saying, all other politicians take a shit on my living room couch, too. Believe me, I'm not letting Trump off the hook for that massive dookie he left on my sofa. I'm just saying, it opened my eyes to just how often these politicians are just dropping their drawers and unloading their burrito remnants on living room couches."

At what point did I ever suggest letting Trump off the hook?

 

And yeah, a whole shit ton of politicians have dropped a load right in your face.  And mine.

[RomaVicta 29906]

2 hours ago, BrazilHorn said:

I think what this shows is all politicians at this level are on the take. Clinton through her foundation and Trump through his real estate holdings/pocket lawyers. 

This isn’t a D vs R thing. Both parties are and have been for sale. 

Put term limits on Congress, make lobbyists disclose all interactions with public figures, get rid of super pacs etc etc

At best this is lazy naivete or, at worst, the lamest fucking "both sides" in this whole fiasco.

Our system is corrupt and maybe doomed. That's not a blanket pardon for possible traitors actively working against the systems in the republic. Politicians taking bribes should be caned and imprisoned. Fat cat retards buddying up with foreign powers for sacks of gold and no regard whatsoever for the future of this country should be drawn and quartered. 

A lot of GOPs may be dragged down by this. I'd be surprised if some Dems haven't made themselves vulnerable to the gallows. That said, there appears to be no comparison in the organizational scope of conspiracy between the Dems and the GOPs. The GOPs are raping the country and their Trumpkin base is lapping up every bit of lying vomit they're presented with that allows them to yell amen.

It's the marriage of villainy and Idiot World.

 

[ndawg 1242]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

At what point did I ever suggest letting Trump off the hook?

 

And yeah, a whole shit ton of politicians have dropped a load right in your face.  And mine.

No, they fart in our living rooms. And you're equating that with shitting on the couch.

[Lurch 5930]

I’m going to need a flowchart to keep up w this analogy. Perhaps they have something on shag

[TwiceHorn 31452]

10 minutes ago, ndawg said:

No, they fart in our living rooms. And you're equating that with shitting on the couch.

I did not "equate" anything.  You did. 

Edited May 20, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Pig Bellmont 8715]

It’s not controversial to assert this administration is historically corrupt. There is a very real possibility the President directly received $ in exchange for executive action. Not just China/ZTE but Qatar and the Kushners too. I’m not sure why there’s any equivocation here. And that’s *just* the tip of the iceberg with bribery allegations. 

The Novartis thing was so controversial that the GC of a multi billion dollar pharmaceutical company resigned last week. That doesn’t happen for some lobbying payments. 

[ndawg 1242]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I did not "equate" anything.  You did. 

You agreed with a post that clearly did. And I did not.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

10 minutes ago, ndawg said:

You agreed with a post that clearly did. And I did not.

Upon review of that post, I regret agreeing with it, certainly the partisan take, as my subsequent response indicated.  But I do think that the Trump debacle is shining something of a light on the forms that corruption and influence peddling can take.  I think we would all agree that there's too much money in American politics.  You'd kind of think there's so much in it already, and "legitimately," that there would be no need to dalliance with foreign governments and general-purpose crooks like Cohen, and maybe Trump is singular in that regard, but I rather doubt it.  He's probably singular in his brazenness/stupidity, but not in the spirit of what he does.

 

To the same end, I have wondered off and on over the years how unique the Watergate burglary was and how many other campaigns have used quasi-legal or flat illegal tactics to gain information about the opposition.  Part of me says it was unique to Nixon's megalomania and G Gordon Liddy.  But Liddy-like characters have been all too common in US politics forever.

Edited May 20, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[ndawg 1242]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Upon review of that post, I regret agreeing with it certainly the partisan take, as my subsequent response indicated.  But I do think that the Trump debacle is shining something of a light on the forms that corruption and influence peddling can take.  I think we would all agree that there's too much money in American politics.  You'd kind of think there's so much in it already, and "legitimately," that there would be no need to dalliance with foreign governments and general-purpose crooks like Cohen, and maybe Trump is singular in that regard, but I rather doubt it.

Yeah, this take I almost completely agree with. On the last part, regarding other politicians entertaining foreign governments, I can't firmly agree or disagree. If a foreign power tries to influence our campaigns in a direct and brazen manner, they *normally* have quite a bit to lose. With someone like Trump, though, their whole calculus is thrown off. But foreign powers don't actually concern me as much as our susceptibility to populist rhetoric. Cheers, sir...

Edited May 20, 2018 by ndawg

[atomheartbevo 89656]

44 minutes ago, Lurch said:

I’m going to need a flowchart to keep up w this analogy. Perhaps they have something on shag

Next time you're in Canada, visit a Tim Hortons.  It'll be in plain sight, unless somebody flung it at a clerk.

[Goredho 17399]

Pistols, 30 paces at dawn or your both pussies.  Intardnet bets are stupid.

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

On 5/10/2018 at 5:56 AM, Anastasis said:

avatar, lol.  Take that shit back to the podcasts. 

SDNY not in action. 

Plea with OSC/Mueller counts as indictment. 

all bets off on cohen death. 

Missed this...Been traveling in Europe.  I’m going with indicted - by NY state AG counts too.  

Too easy for Trump to pardon him if it’s through Mueller.  And make it a year.  June 1, 2019.  Bet expires and I pay.  $1000.  Deal?

[Anastasis 23469]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Missed this...Been traveling in Europe.  I’m going with indicted - by NY state AG counts too.  

Too easy for Trump to pardon him if it’s through Mueller.  And make it a year.  June 1, 2019.  Bet expires and I pay.  $1000.  Deal?

Indictment originates from OSC, 2018, plea pays out as indictment.

State AG gonna require some odds. US attorney in SDNY gonna require some long odds.  Frankly, betting against OSC indictment/plea at this point should pay some odds too, but I'll go even money on that if the timeframe is constrained to 2018. 

Edited May 20, 2018 by Anastasis

[BrazilHorn 6589]

12 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

At best this is lazy naivete or, at worst, the lamest fucking "both sides" in this whole fiasco.

Our system is corrupt and maybe doomed. That's not a blanket pardon for possible traitors actively working against the systems in the republic. Politicians taking bribes should be caned and imprisoned. Fat cat retards buddying up with foreign powers for sacks of gold and no regard whatsoever for the future of this country should be drawn and quartered. 

A lot of GOPs may be dragged down by this. I'd be surprised if some Dems haven't made themselves vulnerable to the gallows. That said, there appears to be no comparison in the organizational scope of conspiracy between the Dems and the GOPs. The GOPs are raping the country and their Trumpkin base is lapping up every bit of lying vomit they're presented with that allows them to yell amen.

It's the marriage of villainy and Idiot World.

 

I’m not saying pardon anyone. Jail Trump and all involved. I’m just saying there are no “sides” here. The entire framework is crooked. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Everyone that committed crimes in the 2016 election cycle should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with maximum sentencing on the table.  

This can never happen again. If these confederates are let off the hook, then justice and the rule of law are truly dead.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Anastasis 23469]

 

Just now, BrazilHorn said:

I’m not saying pardon anyone. Jail Trump and all involved. I’m just saying there are no “sides” here. The entire framework is crooked. 

Fuck jail. Hang em. In public. And don't stop with the Trump campaign.  Lets go ahead and purge all foreign influence on our political processes. 

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Everyone that committed crimes in the 2016 election cycle should be prosecuted...

 

Why stop at 2016. We should be able to go back at least to 1996 if we are rooting out attempts by foreign nations to influence our elections and their alleged American colluders.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

Let’s try 1979. 

[David Dennison 18855]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Why stop at 2016. We should be able to go back at least to 1996 if we are rooting out attempts by foreign nations to influence our elections and their alleged American colluders.

This has to be a job for historians. Unless you want to enact a whole bunch of new statutes of limitations and make them retroactive, which sounds sort of unconstitutional.

[seven 1367]

I'm fine with every president undergoing this level of scrutiny 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[TwiceHorn 31452]

40 minutes ago, seven said:

I'm fine with every president undergoing this level of scrutiny 

I think we might find the results of such scrutiny rather appalling.  Perhaps not Trump-level, particularly as concerns the participation/knowledge of the candidate, but appalling nonetheless.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

When I mentioned G. Gordon Liddy and similars upthread . . . . . guess who I had in mind.

[Washpark 176]

It is intellectually lazy, dishonest, or both to believe that having a surrogate take payments from a company for access is the same level of corruption that has historically occurred.  I agree that lobbying and money in politics distorts incentives but it is another level of influence peddling when direct payments happen vs campaign contributions.  

[Anastasis 23469]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Let’s try 1979. 

So you sent me down a google worm hole.

 

Did not know this, but apparently the British executed a covert campaign using "fake news" to influence the outcome of US elections back in the 40s.  Their objective was to undermine politicians who were opposed to getting us into WWII. And another British interference as far back as 1888. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Something must have happened in the Grand Jury on Friday to have Trump go off like this today.

My prediction:  Indictments drop by Friday June 1st.

[Paul Wesley 3278]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think we might find the results of such scrutiny rather appalling.  Perhaps not Trump-level, particularly as concerns the participation/knowledge of the candidate, but appalling nonetheless.

Enough with the "both sides" already.  

No, we don't have a long history of executives funneling vast fortunes through their thoroughly corrupt private lawyer (Cohen), or setting American public policy based on half a million dollars in undeclared foreign money (Michael Flynn), or setting American policy based on laundering millions of oligarch money (Manafort), or conspiring with foreign powers to build billion dollar luxury high rises around the globe (the entire shitty Trump family), or conspiring with sheiks while maintaining interest in a shadow army worth a billion dollars (Erik Prince), or campaign officials conspiring with foreign intelligence services who are hostile to our interests and actively trying to subvert our democracy (Stone).  

I could go on.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Paul Wesley

[yaqdum 182]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Everyone that committed crimes in the 2016 election cycle should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with maximum sentencing on the table.  

This can never happen again. If these confederates are let off the hook, then justice and the rule of law are truly dead.

hear here.

[yaqdum 182]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

conjuring up charges against roger stone is a little like looking for misbehavior from albert fish.

 

[yaqdum 182]

14 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

Enough with the "both sides" already.

twice is doing his usual handstands to try to get us to accept outrage as the new normal.

[Homercles 10205]

twice is doing his usual handstands to try to get us to accept outrage as the new normal.

I certainly don’t agree with ‘both sides’ as a general way to discount the monster, obvious, disgusting level of corruption in this administration...however I appreciate Twices legal expertise and think it helps fuel his generally neutral takes that y’all find as ‘both sides’ excuse making.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

40 minutes ago, yaqdum said:

twice is doing his usual handstands to try to get us to accept outrage as the new normal.

Maybe because I have been outraged for a while now.

 

And outrage isn't the new normal?

Edited May 20, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31452]

42 minutes ago, Homercles said:

 

I certainly don’t agree with ‘both sides’ as a general way to discount the monster, obvious, disgusting level of corruption in this administration...however I appreciate Twices legal expertise and think it helps fuel his generally neutral takes that y’all find as ‘both sides’ excuse making.

Yeah I really don't want to make the "both sides" thing, at all.  But I don't accept that between Watergate and Trumpgate, all of the campaigns were virtuous and above-board, either.  Those were certainly two "high points" (for lack of a better term) associated with the extraordinary personal defects of Nixon and now Trump, but to maintain that it only happens with pathological personalities is naive.

 

I don't see why that point has to be considered "pro-Trump" or "both sides." 

 

Part of it, I guess, is trying to figure out whether this is the end of the republic, as Brisket so loudly proclaims, or just a really disgusting, but temporary, show put on by a really disgusting character that may ultimately provoke some change or at least some knowledge for future reference.  In keeping with Meacham's admonition that in historical context this probably isn't the end of the republic, I am trying to gain some form of context for it all.

Edited May 20, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The most disappointing thing about this situation is Trump may have been a full blown international criminal BEFORE he ran for president.  Where the fuck was our law enforcement then?  How many of these crooks have it coming because of Trump?

[TwiceHorn 31452]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The most disappointing thing about this situation is Trump may have been a full blown international criminal BEFORE he ran for president.  Where the fuck was our law enforcement then?  How many of these crooks have it coming because of Trump?

That is, indeed, an awful truth.  And is one of the reasons I tend to hold your beloved FBI and other federal LEOs and the USAOs in relatively low regard.  Guys like Trump, hedgies, various other Wall Street characters, the TBTF banks are shitting all over us with countless civil and criminal violations right out in the open and they get a pass for various unfathomable reasons while dumbass, relatively minor crooks like Shkreli get nailed to the wall (there are better examples than Shkreli, but he'll do in a pinch).

[RomaVicta 29906]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah I really don't want to make the "both sides" thing, at all.  But I don't accept that between Watergate and Trumpgate, all of the campaigns were virtuous and above-board, either.  Those were certainly two "high points" (for lack of a better term) associated with the extraordinary personal defects of Nixon and now Trump, but to maintain that it only happens with pathological personalities is naive.

 

I don't see why that point has to be considered "pro-Trump" or "both sides." 

Perhaps I over reacted to your earlier post, but this newest post could also be considered a straw man. Nobody has ever contended that all of the administrations between Watergate and Trump were virtuous and above board. You're not meeting your own solid standard as an observer.

I've been on a long cross-country drive the last few weeks. I've wondered if the Chinese contributions to the Bill Clinton campaign are somewhere on the spectrum that includes these new, alarming allegations about Trump and foreign entities. I voted for Clinton and would have chosen him over any president since. My eyes are not closed, nor do I think you have the standing to pity my (or others') naivete which, in this case, you seem anxious to do.

Your position seems to be "both sides" because you have fallen back on this straw man argument that maybe we're too stupid to see that corruption has popped up more than twice in presidential politics over the last forty years. That's not really a ground breaking perspective on American politics.

Edited May 20, 2018 by RomaVicta

[Jive Turkey 12594]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Something must have happened in the Grand Jury on Friday to have Trump go off like this today.

My prediction:  Indictments drop by Friday June 1st.

this is getting to be like the saga of Billy and April.

Tomorrow's the big day!

All that's missing is Louie Anderson's involvement.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

20 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Perhaps I over reacted to your earlier post, but this newest post could also be considered a straw man. Nobody has ever contended that all of the administrations between Watergate and Trump were virtuous and above board. Your not meeting your own solid standard as an observer.

I've been on a long cross country drive the last few weeks. I've wondered if the Chinese contributions to the Bill Clinton campaign are somewhere on the spectrum that includes these new, alarming allegations about Trump and foreign entities. I voted for Clinton and would have chosen him over any president since. My eyes are not closed, nor do I think you have the standing to pity my (or others') naivete which, in this case, you seem anxious to do.

Your position seems to be "both sides" because you have fallen back on this straw man argument that maybe we're too stupid to see that corruption has popped up more than twice in presidential politics over the last forty years. That's not really a ground breaking perspective on American politics.

All I have ever said all along on this note is that Trumpy has given me, at least, new insight on how disgusting things are and probably have been for a while.  In particular, the ATT and Novartis "insight" purchases (I made basically the same comment on the Cohen thread without universal condemnation).  Granted, Cohen may have solicited those payments, and the use he apparently made of them is grotesque unto itself and he's a bigger scumbucket than the usual person paid for "insight."  But the fact remains that they paid this guy.

The fact that Fortune 100 companies were perfectly willing to pay some guy a really solid years' salary or more for some unknown "insight" or ability to influence the President or President-elect is disgusting.  One or both of them said it was among "several" such arrangements.  And Novartis, I believe, entered into an enforceable contract BEFORE finding out that Cohen allegedly was not useful.  All of that indicates to me that this is business as usual at this level of politics and I find it grotesque.

Trump is no doubt historically corrupt, but it also takes "two to tango," and there seems to be no shortage of people willing to tango with Trump and I suspect that isn't solely because Trump is so corrupt and corruptible.  They have been taking tango lessons for years, so to speak.

If you follow my posts, I have been kind of thinking aloud on the whole thing, bringing in Watergate and just trying to put the whole thing in some sort of historical perspective.  If that appears to be minimizing what Trump is doing, then maybe that's what it is.  It's not what I am trying to do.  In responding to various people's "Both Sides!!!11111!!!!" I have probably been led astray from my original point and that appears to be creating straw men or whatever.

 

Edited May 20, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[RomaVicta 29906]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

All I have ever said all along on this note is that Trumpy has given me, at least, new insight on how disgusting things are and probably have been for a while.  In particular, the ATT and Novartis "insight" purchases (I made basically the same comment on the Cohen thread without universal condemnation).  Granted, Cohen may have solicited those payments, and the use he apparently made of them is grotesque unto itself. 

But the fact that Fortune 100 companies were perfectly willing to pay some guy a really solid years' salary or more for some unknown "insight" or ability to influence the President or President-elect is disgusting.  One or both of them said it was among "several" such arrangements.  And Novartis, I believe, entered into an enforceable contract BEFORE finding out that Cohen was not useful.  All of that indicates to me that this is business as usual at this level of politics and I find it grotesque.

If you follow my posts, I have been kind of thinking aloud on the whole thing, bringing in Watergate and just trying to put the whole thing in some sort of historical perspective.  If that appears to be minimizing what Trump is doing, then maybe that's what it is.  It's not what I am trying to do.

 

You raise the unattractive possibility that maybe the problem is me in this exchange. Thanks for clarifying.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

You raise the unattractive possibility that maybe the problem is me in this exchange. Thanks for clarifying.

Not my intention.  Just trying to explain better.  I do have a habit of sort of thinking aloud and spewing unformed or unfinished thoughts on this forum.  You're a thoughtful guy and I usually read your posts with interest.

 

You also made me realize that perhaps it is I who is naive as to the goings on.

Edited May 20, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’m going:

Roger Stone

Sam Clovis 

Michael Cohen 

Eric Prince

Paul Manafort (additional charges)

USC 18 371 Conspiracy to defraud the United States

Maybe more.