Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Pods

Pods 7525

Posted
Posted (edited)

If it's Trump, he most likely impregnated her in the summer of 2015. There's a photo of her at the pool at Trump Soho in June 2015 and another that looks like the same pool furniture in August 2015. Circumstantial still, but there are a lot of folks digging now. 

Edited by Pods
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted

The thing I was wondering during the campaign, all along, scratching my head and wondering, was "Who the hell is funding Trump's campaign? What lobbies are behind him?" There's that old idea that our politicians should wear NASCAR style suits bearing the patches of all the Fortune 500 companies that own them, but I could never figure out what would go on Trump's NASCAR uniform. With guys like McCain and Graham, it's Raytheon and Lockheed. With Dole it was Big Ag. With all the Bushes it was Big Awl. Democrats get the unions, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Big Law, and certain elements on Wall Street. 

But with Trump? Where was the money coming from, and who would demand favors in return?

And don't try to tell me he self-funded this shit, or that the Mercers alone funded the entire campaign. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1951

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The thing I was wondering during the campaign, all along, scratching my head and wondering, was "Who the hell is funding Trump's campaign? What lobbies are behind him?" There's that old idea that our politicians should wear NASCAR style suits bearing the patches of all the Fortune 500 companies that own them, but I could never figure out what would go on Trump's NASCAR uniform. With guys like McCain and Graham, it's Raytheon and Lockheed. With Dole it was Big Ag. With all the Bushes it was Big Awl. Democrats get the unions, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Big Law, and certain elements on Wall Street. 

But with Trump? Where was the money coming from, and who would demand favors in return?

And don't try to tell me he self-funded this shit, or that the Mercers alone funded the entire campaign. 

Trump has support of most traditional republican groups like defense, gun and oil but has brought immigration and identity with him. He would need a patch for the alt-right, white pride, or something to symbolize the “immigrants are scary and unamerican” crowd. I would also argue that he gets a patch for certain US worker-class sectors that believe they are disenfranchised by the global market place, such coal and steel.

Edited by GW Hayduke
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The thing I was wondering during the campaign, all along, scratching my head and wondering, was "Who the hell is funding Trump's campaign? What lobbies are behind him?" There's that old idea that our politicians should wear NASCAR style suits bearing the patches of all the Fortune 500 companies that own them, but I could never figure out what would go on Trump's NASCAR uniform. With guys like McCain and Graham, it's Raytheon and Lockheed. With Dole it was Big Ag. With all the Bushes it was Big Awl. Democrats get the unions, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Big Law, and certain elements on Wall Street. 

But with Trump? Where was the money coming from, and who would demand favors in return?

And don't try to tell me he self-funded this shit, or that the Mercers alone funded the entire campaign. 

Can get some insight here.  https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864

 

For the record, opensecrets is a great site

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Can get some insight here.  https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864

 

For the record, opensecrets is a great site

 

Trump 2016

Small Individual Contributions (< $200) $86,749,927 25.93%
Large Individual Contributions $46,873,083 14.01%
PAC Contributions* $144,764 0.04%
Candidate self-financing $66,141,713 19.77%
Federal Funds $0 0.00%
Other $134,607,903 40.24%

Clinton 2016

Small Individual Contributions (< $200)

$105,552,584 18.53%
Large Individual Contributions $300,111,643 52.67%
PAC Contributions* $1,785,190 0.31%
Candidate self-financing $1,450,335 0.25%
Federal Funds $0 0.00%
Other $160,851,203 28.23%

 

There may be similar variations in distribution of sources of campaign funds between candidates going back in time, but the differences in 2016 are significant.  For the purposes of this thread, which subsections would be the most likely to be targeted for money laundering foreign cash infusions into a presidential campaign?  Candidate 'Self financing' and 'Other '?  Small or Large individual contributions ?  All of the above? None of the above ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jester

Jester 382

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

There may be similar variations in distribution of sources of campaign funds between candidates going back in time, but the differences in 2016 are significant.  For the purposes of this thread, which subsections would be the most likely to be targeted for money laundering foreign cash infusions into a presidential campaign?  Candidate 'Self financing' and 'Other '?  Small or Large individual contributions ?  All of the above? None of the above ?

I like to imagine it's a real life Breaking Bad scam similar to Walt Jr.'s fundraising efforts for his Dad's cancer treatment.   The Russians utilized stolen credit card/bank info to drop small amounts into Trump's coffers without anyone noticing.  Surely the real life Saul had connections to make this happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1951

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jester said:

I like to imagine it's a real life Breaking Bad scam similar to Walt Jr.'s fundraising efforts for his Dad's cancer treatment.   The Russians utilized stolen credit card/bank info to drop small amounts into Trump's coffers without anyone noticing.  Surely the real life Saul had connections to make this happen.

Not sure if folks heard about this but one method of money laundering the Russians were potentially using had to do with online gaming where dirty money was used to purchase in-game features. I forget the details of the company that was doing this for an oligarch

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jhawk

Jhawk 1075

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Not sure if folks heard about this but one method of money laundering the Russians were potentially using had to do with online gaming where dirty money was used to purchase in-game features. I forget the details of the company that was doing this for an oligarch

No comment on the actual issue from me here but I did want to say that this is really pretty genius when you think about it.  Your online game/app can be located in the most advantageous area of the world.  You can make the most obscure app ever or make one like a flappy bird clone.  You might get some revenue from legitimate gamers but you could make bots that sit in your game and drain your bank account into the game that you own.  Pretty brilliant if that actually happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted

Does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that Russian oligarchs, who control most of their very corrupt country, including, apparently, law enforcement and banking, would have any need to launder money, at least outside the Russian Federation and former Soviet republics?

 

I get that they need to invest it outside of the countries they control, but it seems like they could launder it beyond all recognition right there at home with no risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"We spent $300 million electing a president, and all we got was a crooked Cheeto"

I may print up some shirts.

My "but Hillary"

"We spent $570 million to elect the first woman president, and all we got was someone who sexually assaults them."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1951

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that Russian oligarchs, who control most of their very corrupt country, including, apparently, law enforcement and banking, would have any need to launder money, at least outside the Russian Federation and former Soviet republics?

 

I get that they need to invest it outside of the countries they control, but it seems like they could launder it beyond all recognition right there at home with no risk.

We have sanctions against Russian banks

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15608

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

No risk except that their wealth can be taken by Putin at any time. 

This is why they do it.  When it gets down to it, none of them trust each other.  So they have to hide money all over the world in case the shit hits the fan at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 4956

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It would be a start.  I don't know what the full answer is, but I am willing to try some radical shit to right the course. 

i always like what the UK does - can't really advertise until one month before the election

(i may be representing this wrong, but i believe that is the gist of it) 

great idea. it short circuits this 2 year cycle BS campaigning

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23390

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, staboner said:

i always like what the UK does - can't really advertise until one month before the election

(i may be representing this wrong, but i believe that is the gist of it) 

great idea. it short circuits this 2 year cycle BS campaigning

yes, definitely shorten the cycle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27392

Posted
Posted

You might need a constitutional amendment, but I would say you limit the ballot to any party whose candidate the previous cycle got at least 5% of the popular vote, or make them submit valid signatures totaling 5% of the number of registered voters 12 months prior to the election.  Then each candidate is given X federal dollars with which to campaign, beginning 6 months prior to the election. Everyone is on equal footing financially

 

Primary campaigns are privately funded but capped at a certain amount and can begin 12 months prior to election day

 

Criminal penalties for any violations 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23390

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

You need a liberal Supreme Court if you want campaign finance reform. That means electing Democrats.

Well lets not get crazy. I think that we likely need a constitutional amendment to implement the kind of reforms I would be entertaining.  Of the course the chances of that emerging from our current political system is crazy talk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18646

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

Well lets not get crazy. I think that we likely need a constitutional amendment to implement the kind of reforms I would be entertaining.  Of the course the chances of that emerging from our current political system is crazy talk. 

You might be right, but that means electing liberal Democrats. Republicans aren't going to lift a finger to get money out of politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 10970

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Well lets not get crazy. I think that we likely need a constitutional amendment to implement the kind of reforms I would be entertaining.  Of the course the chances of that emerging from our current political system is crazy talk. 

 

If we start down the constitutional amendment road, not telling where we may end up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23390

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

If we start down the constitutional amendment road, not telling where we may end up.

I share this concern, but would support a amendment focused on campaign finance reform, along the lines of bonz's proposal, and taking SCOTUS out of the picture on it. But I agree, its a potential can of worms. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DiceHands

DiceHands 349

Posted
Posted

BBC reporting Cohen took 400k from ukraine to arrange meeting with trump.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44215656

pay to play?

if we are just finding out about this, im sure mueller has known for quite some time.  im gonna guess that those extra cell phones cohen had is going to tie trump into this somehow.  there is absolutely no way that trump didnt know about this going on.  anyone that believes he was ignorant of all of this is lying to themselves.

and if he was completely in the dark, how the fuck is someone so blind the president of the united states?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

Not by NY State charges.

Maybe on the taxi stuff, but we don't know what's there yet.  The shit he seems dead-to-rights on is federal, and there's NY's double jeopardy law to contend with even if it implicates state law.  The chickens are a long way from hatching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23390

Posted
Posted

So Ukraine tried to influence the outcome of the US election by throwing weight behind Clinton, and developing oppo material to undermine Trump. Trump wins, they're on shit list. Have to buy access through Cohen to get a meeting with the President.  Jesus, what a clusterfuck.  Ukrainians don't seem very smart. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So Ukraine tried to influence the outcome of the US election by throwing weight behind Clinton, and developing oppo material to undermine Trump. Trump wins, they're on shit list. Have to buy access through Cohen to get a meeting with the President.  Jesus, what a clusterfuck.  Ukrainians don't seem very smart. 

Manafort is not currently in the White House advising Trump on Ukraine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, triplehorn said:

 

Trump 2016

Small Individual Contributions (< $200) $86,749,927 25.93%
Large Individual Contributions $46,873,083 14.01%
PAC Contributions* $144,764 0.04%
Candidate self-financing $66,141,713 19.77%
Federal Funds $0 0.00%
Other $134,607,903 40.24%

Clinton 2016

Small Individual Contributions (< $200)

$105,552,584 18.53%
Large Individual Contributions $300,111,643 52.67%
PAC Contributions* $1,785,190 0.31%
Candidate self-financing $1,450,335 0.25%
Federal Funds $0 0.00%
Other $160,851,203 28.23%

 

There may be similar variations in distribution of sources of campaign funds between candidates going back in time, but the differences in 2016 are significant.  For the purposes of this thread, which subsections would be the most likely to be targeted for money laundering foreign cash infusions into a presidential campaign?  Candidate 'Self financing' and 'Other '?  Small or Large individual contributions ?  All of the above? None of the above ?

 

It's important to note that the above numbers do not include the 2017 Inauguration Fund contributions.  Obama crushed the previous record in 2009 at $53M.  Trump more than doubled that in 2017, >$100M.  A small amount of that was spent on the actual event.  The rest has gone somewhere that nobody knows.

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/trump/inauguration-donors

"Raising nearly twice as much as Barack Obama's 2009 record of $53 million, Donald Trump pulled in inaugural funds from, among others, corporations and wealthy individuals who hadn't given to his campaign or supported the Republican convention in Cleveland but were subsequently eager to clamber aboard.

Of course, Obama in 2009 (though not in 2013) barred corporate, labor, PAC and lobbyist contributions and individual gifts of more than $50,000; Trump set no dollar limit and prohibited contributions only from lobbyists. Another difference? The menu of choices offered to donors, where specific dollar values were attached to different levels of access. Admission to a "leadership luncheon" with members of Trump's cabinet and GOP congressional leaders was on offer for a cool $1 million, for example."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

You might be right, but that means electing liberal Democrats. Republicans aren't going to lift a finger to get money out of politics. 

And neither are Democrats.  Do you think Hillary Clinton financed her campaign with Chelsea's piggy bank?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Lange

Ted Lange 16040

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mojo Hand said:

Citizens United was a 5-4 vote.   And Garland would have been the 5th liberal vote to cabin Citizens United in future cases.  Its consequences are on Republicans. 

And Gary Johnson voters in swing states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18646

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Citizens United was a 5-4 vote.   And Garland would have been the 5th liberal vote to cabin Citizens United in future cases.  Its consequences are on Republicans. 

It would be fun to Merrick Garland a Trump nominee, but I'd rather see him lose the 2020 election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...