Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019


Francisco 2.0

Recommended Posts

Lawrence fucked up.  The story every night should be, “We have yet to prove Trump didn’t co-sign billion dollar loans from Deutsche Bank with Russian oligarchs.”

If Trump didn’t engage in massive financial crimes with Kremlin connected oligarchs, that would be the bigger story.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lawrence fucked up.  The story every night should be, “We have yet to prove Trump didn’t co-sign billion dollar loans from Deutsche Bank with Russian oligarchs.”

If Trump didn’t engage in massive financial crimes with Kremlin connected oligarchs, that would be the bigger story.

 

That's the thing that I don't understand. It's like they think if they break some big story someone NOW is finally going to say "Oh shit, Trump really is a moron." 

A legit news source should know fucking better and all it does is give his lunatic base even more examples of why they can't trust the media. 

It's really beyond annoying at this point. Throw in the fact they won't impeach and we are where we are. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

then:

O'Donnell isn't dumb.  He's been on this rope swing forever.  He understands sourcing and has been sued previously by Trump (who lost).  

Trump had no choice but to double down and threaten to sue for libel (discovery ha) to avoid having to provide any cogent responses to questions about his debt and DB financing. O'Donnell qualified the news as being 'single sourced' and hedged with "if true."  I think this is a legit source whose identity was never going to be shared, lawsuit or not.  It's a fair likelihood his single source is not prepared to take on Russian mob in retaliation.  Congress expects the Circuit court to rule in their favor and compel DB to turn over their records on Trump financials.  So the public should find out, most likely through impeachment.  Bear in mind Trump has once again potentially been drawn into another very significant public prevarication/lie to avoid any substantive reckoning in the immediate short term.  one day at a time.  kick the can.  fade emotions!  forget, forget!

Trump's public twit-flailing and lack of planning has reduced him to continuous trench warfare for daily survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

then:

O'Donnell isn't dumb.  He's been on this rope swing forever.  He understands sourcing and has been sued previously by Trump (who lost).  

Trump had no choice but to double down and threaten to sue for libel (discovery ha) to avoid having to provide any cogent responses to questions about his debt and DB financing. O'Donnell qualified the news as being 'single sourced' and hedged with "if true."  I think this is a legit source whose identity was never going to be shared, lawsuit or not.  It's a fair likelihood his single source is not prepared to take on Russian mob in retaliation.  Congress expects the Circuit court to rule in their favor and compel DB to turn over their records on Trump financials.  So the public should find out, most likely through impeachment.  Bear in mind Trump has once again potentially been drawn into another very significant public prevarication/lie to avoid any substantive reckoning in the immediate short term.  one day at a time.  kick the can.  fade emotions!  forget, forget!

Trump's public twit-flailing and lack of planning has reduced him to continuous trench warfare for daily survival.

Your neverending faith in the Dems in Congress is dumber than most of the shit Icono posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Your neverending faith in the Dems in Congress is dumber than most of the shit Icono posts.

It's NOT never ending faith, for sure.  But nothing today is different that what I've envisioned all summer.  I expect that the House will have worked through the courts with enough success this summer and fall to possess the necessary evidence to lower the boom on the Trump presidency late '19/into next year.  They don't have it yet.  Trump financials are the big one being fought over now followed with parallel importance ruling on McGahn being in contempt and Congress enforcing it.  If McGahn goes, they all go.

The McGahn suit got punted to the pool on Aug 14 by Judge Howell.  Add some expected wait time.  Not House's fault.

Spoiler

 

 

Deutsche Bank has so far refused to comment on O’Donnell’s claims.   Maybe Trump can entreaty DB to publicly bury this for good.  That would be swell.  C'mon Deutsche Bank!  Shoot it down...we're waiting.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

It's NOT never ending faith, for sure.  But nothing today is different that what I've envisioned all summer.  I expect that the House will have worked through the courts with enough success this summer and fall to possess the necessary evidence to lower the boom on the Trump presidency late '19/into next year.  They don't have it yet.  Trump financials are the big one being fought over now followed with parallel importance ruling on McGahn being in contempt and Congress enforcing it.  If McGahn goes, they all go.

The McGahn suit got punted to the pool on Aug 14 by Judge Howell.  Add some expected wait time.  Not House's fault.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Deutsche Bank has so far refused to comment on O’Donnell’s claims.   Maybe Trump can entreaty DB to publicly bury this for good.  That would be swell.  C'mon Deutsche Bank!  Shoot it down...we're waiting.
 

good point. although bc DB is involved in several lawsuits at the moment, they probably can't comment on much. but if it were patently false, you think they could say that, no?

also I'm glad someone up thread reminded us all of the connection to DB, DOTUS, and SCOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

It's NOT never ending faith, for sure.  But nothing today is different that what I've envisioned all summer.  I expect that the House will have worked through the courts with enough success this summer and fall to possess the necessary evidence to lower the boom on the Trump presidency late '19/into next year.  They don't have it yet.  Trump financials are the big one being fought over now followed with parallel importance ruling on McGahn being in contempt and Congress enforcing it.  If McGahn goes, they all go.

The McGahn suit got punted to the pool on Aug 14 by Judge Howell.  Add some expected wait time.  Not House's fault.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Deutsche Bank has so far refused to comment on O’Donnell’s claims.   Maybe Trump can entreaty DB to publicly bury this for good.  That would be swell.  C'mon Deutsche Bank!  Shoot it down...we're waiting.
 

The democrats will never get anything better than the obstruction of justice in the Mueller Report.  I’ve never seen more egregious national security crimes and abuses of power than what is described in Volume 2.  Volume 1 ain’t no picnic either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

It's NOT never ending faith, for sure.  But nothing today is different that what I've envisioned all summer.  I expect that the House will have worked through the courts with enough success this summer and fall to possess the necessary evidence to lower the boom on the Trump presidency late '19/into next year.  They don't have it yet.  Trump financials are the big one being fought over now followed with parallel importance ruling on McGahn being in contempt and Congress enforcing it.  If McGahn goes, they all go.

The McGahn suit got punted to the pool on Aug 14 by Judge Howell.  Add some expected wait time.  Not House's fault.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Deutsche Bank has so far refused to comment on O’Donnell’s claims.   Maybe Trump can entreaty DB to publicly bury this for good.  That would be swell.  C'mon Deutsche Bank!  Shoot it down...we're waiting.
 

If what is already publicly known is insufficient then literally nothing is sufficient. They're not refusing to proceed because they don't have evidence to support their case, they're refusing to proceed because they're cowards who are terrified of failing. Every day new impeachable shit comes out, and maybe Pelosi and Schiff tweet that it's unacceptable, and the whole party then ignores it and moves on to studiously ignoring the next impeachable offense, rinse and repeat. They're not going to find a golden ticket in any of his finances that significantly improves their case against Trump; not because there isn't extremely damaging evidence in them, but because it won't change any minds.  

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats will never get anything better than the obstruction of justice in the Mueller Report.  I’ve never seen more egregious national security crimes and abuses of power than what is described in Volume 2.  Volume 1 ain’t no picnic either. 

 

Just now, wildcat09 said:

If what is already publicly known is insufficient then literally nothing is sufficient. 

Even so, in order to bring a forceful understandable prosecution to the public for impeachment, House needs those witnesses in the Mueller report to testify.  Period.

House has targeted the top of the pyramid - WH Counsel McGahn - for the courts to rule.  If he is forced to testify or go sleep in jail for months, Hope Hicks and all the rest of the WH scree will be forced too.

These are determinative decisions being weighed by courts that could make all the difference.  It’s still too soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats will never get anything better than the obstruction of justice in the Mueller Report.  I’ve never seen more egregious national security crimes and abuses of power than what is described in Volume 2.  Volume 1 ain’t no picnic either. 

 

Just now, wildcat09 said:

If what is already publicly known is insufficient then literally nothing is sufficient. 

Even so, in order to bring a forceful understandable prosecution to the public for impeachment, House needs those witnesses in the Mueller report to testify.  Period.

House has targeted the top of the pyramid - WH Counsel McGahn - for the courts to rule.  If he is forced to testify or go sleep in jail for months, Hope Hicks and all the rest of the WH scree will be forced too.

These are determinative decisions being weighed by courts that could make all the difference.  It’s still too soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

Even so, in order to bring a forceful understandable prosecution to the public for impeachment, House needs those witnesses in the Mueller report to testify.  Period.

Pretty sure that’s precisely why they will never publicly testify.  The slow bleed impeachment movement is just a show to cripple Trump’s 2020 prospects and assuage democratic voters.  They’re cowards and lack meaningful leadership. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pretty sure that’s precisely why they will never publicly testify.  The slow bleed impeachment movement is just a show to cripple Trump’s 2020 prospects and assuage democratic voters.  They’re cowards and lack meaningful leadership. 

That is precisely what is before the courts right now.

 It would be beyond unfortunate if the House made a dry run at impeachment before knowing what they’ve got from the courts to present.  

If the court rules against Congress on compelling witnesses who cooperated with Mueller to testify - in order to prosecute findings of the Mueller report for impeachment - that would be pretty fucking devastating for Congress.  The flow will be opposite and equally as devastating if the court rules in favor of Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

That is precisely what is before the courts right now.

 It would be beyond unfortunate if the House made a dry run at impeachment before knowing what they’ve got from the courts to present.  

If the court rules against Congress on compelling witnesses who cooperated with Mueller to testify - in order to prosecute findings of the Mueller report for impeachment - that would be pretty fucking devastating for Congress.  The flow will be opposite and equally as devastating if the court rules in favor of Congress.

The democrats used Mueller to avoid doing their duty and now they are using the courts to do the same.  There is ZERO sense of urgency which is the biggest tell regarding the democrats in Congress. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats used Mueller to avoid doing their duty and now they are using the courts to do the same.  There is ZERO sense of urgency which is the biggest tell regarding the democrats in Congress. 

Back to the bank talk, I hope you are wrong and Congress gets it together or this is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys need to quit humping Brisket's ledge.

The Mazars Trump tax/accounting case is also being decided on appeal by Trump right now.  The most recent hearing in the DC Circuit was scheduled for last Friday.

This shit has everything to do with making an 'ironclad' case, not avoidance/fear/dereliction of duty.

This impeachment timeline explanation squares with how I see this but with more detail:

Quote

First, House Dems know they can vote to impeach Trump right now on multiple bases, including obstruction of justice, violations of the Emoluments Clause, gross unfitness for office, and more. They also know the Senate will NOT convict for any of that.

Rather than rushing to impeach and failing to get a conviction, House Dems are working hard to put together an “ironclad” (using Pelosi’s words) case against Trump. The centerpiece of the ironclad case is that Trump is compromised by money laundering for Russian oligarchs.

House Dems are betting it all that Trump is compromised by Russian money laundering. They already know it’s true and they know where to get the evidence needed to prove it: from Trump’s bankers (Deutsche Bank) and his tax advisors (Mazars).

Getting evidence from Deutsche Bank/Mazars has been the primary focus of House General Counsel (Douglas Letter) ever since he was hired by Pelosi in January. Subpoenas were issued to Deutsche Bank/Mazars back in April and the cases have been working their way through the courts.

For more on how the House will get the DB/Mazars documents, read the thread below. For now, let’s just say the strategy is sound and the House should get the documents from DB/Mazars by November of this year, a full year before the election...

Once House Dems get the DB/Mazars documents, they have a team in place to analyze them, namely Daniel Goldman (former SDNY deputy chief of organized-crime unit) and Daniel Noble (former SDNY co-chief of the complex frauds and cybercrime unit).

Goldman and Noble will put together a killer case showing Trump to be a career money launderer for the Russians. This not only makes him a criminal, it also means he’s compromised and beholden to Russia. This is way beyond any of the other evidence against Trump; this is nuclear.

Once the case is built, Pelosi will take the podium and announce formal impeachment hearings, complete with the smoking gun. Pelosi will detail the evidence House Dems have gathered and the electorate will suddenly awaken from a long, gaslit slumber.

Don’t worry, all the other goodies will be in the Articles of Impeachment: the emoluments violations, the obstruction, the racism, the lying, the rapes, all of it. But the nuclear bomb is the money laundering. And it’s not just a little bit of money laundering, it’s massive.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s no such thing as an ironclad case. This isn’t a fucking movie and Trump’s supporters aren’t going to all suddenly change their minds if we can just stick Matthew McConaughey in front of everyone to say “now imagine she’s white.”

The case against Trump can’t fucking hinge on the fact that he’s in some Russian mobster’s pocket. For one thing, even if it can be proven it can’t be easily explained to laymen. More importantly, if that’s what it takes it means that everything else he’s done is acceptable and doesn’t merit criticism much less removal. Any of the lawyers here on shaggy, even Johnny Sack, right this minute could probably draft articles of impeachment that run 200+ pages long, without even getting into anything that’s in the Mueller report. And every single fucking day that passes and the Dems remain silent, they ratify that conduct. How much more shit will they ratify while chasing this mythical ironclad case?  They’ve got shitloads of evidence to make their case. What they lack is the will to do so.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

If what is already publicly known is insufficient then literally nothing is sufficient. They're not refusing to proceed because they don't have evidence to support their case, they're refusing to proceed because they're cowards who are terrified of failing. Every day new impeachable shit comes out, and maybe Pelosi and Schiff tweet that it's unacceptable, and the whole party then ignores it and moves on to studiously ignoring the next impeachable offense, rinse and repeat. They're not going to find a golden ticket in any of his finances that significantly improves their case against Trump; not because there isn't extremely damaging evidence in them, but because it won't change any minds.  

They aren't proceeding because they don't think it's wise politically.

That's the only reason why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pretty sure that’s precisely why they will never publicly testify.  The slow bleed impeachment movement is just a show to cripple Trump’s 2020 prospects and assuage democratic voters.  They’re cowards and lack meaningful leadership. 

And it would cut into vacation time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DigDug said:

We had a female in our unit turn up pregnant while we were deployed in Afghanistan.  She said it was her boyfriend's from right before we left.  Not sure I ever bought that, because come on, I mean she was a giant whore.

Congrats on becoming a father 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They aren't proceeding because they don't think it's wise politically.

That's the only reason why.

Yeah and that’s the same kind of bullshit that caused black people to only count as 3/5 of a human being in our constitution.  Sometimes you have to, you know, do the RIGHT thing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

The wall has AIDS!!!

 

The Wall has AIDS.  Not just Gypsum Board, but full blown AIDS.  

And so this is the end of our wall.  And every wall is dead from AIDS.  

It took from me my best border.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

You guys need to quit humping Brisket's ledge.

The Mazars Trump tax/accounting case is also being decided on appeal by Trump right now.  The most recent hearing in the DC Circuit was scheduled for last Friday.

This shit has everything to do with making an 'ironclad' case, not avoidance/fear/dereliction of duty.

This impeachment timeline explanation squares with how I see this but with more detail:

so, are you saying once the "ironclad" case is made, that the senate will vote to convict/remove?  because that's not ever happening.  and he's not quitting.  or getting arrested.  he might have a stroke or something, but who the fuck could tell.

the dems aren't doing anything because they're currently holding the 'winning' hand.  the quickest way (and the only way) to remove trump is at the ballot box in 15 months.  that's it and that's all.  he's underwater across the board and will get crushed, and they know this.

that said, i have no doubt that folks are building their cases.  i'm sure there are dozens outstanding, not to mention the 10-12 that outside agencies are still working on that were mentioned in the mueller report.  but once those cases reveal shitty shit, nothing will happen to his standing as president.  afterwards...maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...