RussiaGate

[Opoponax]

Trump demands stiff prison sentence for his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen, accuses Mueller of seeking 'lies' from witnesses

• President Donald Trump on Monday called for his ex-personal lawyer Michael Cohen to receive a stiff prison sentence for his admitted crimes.
• Trump accused Cohen of making up "stories to get a GREAT & ALREADY reduced deal for himself."
• Trump also accused special counsel Robert Mueller of seeking "lies" from witnesses about Trump, and praised his longtime associate Roger Stone as having the "guts" to withstand pressure from Mueller's prosecutors to "make up stories" about the president.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/03/tru...el-cohen-and-mueller-praises-roger-stone.html

President Twitler McCrazyPants is an irrational emotional thinker. He's lashing out and being retaliatory or at least wants to be retaliatory. He doesn't know how to protect himself legally and this just makes him look even worse.

He also called for himself to receive a stiff prison sentence because he's an un-indicted co-conspirator in at least one of Cohen's crimes. How does he not realize this? Or, if he does understand this, he is admitting he committed a crime, but can't be punished for it. Also, if I believed in Jebus, I would be praying so hard for news that Stone has been indicted and agreed to a plea deal. That would be especially satisfactory.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I would be praying so hard for news that Stone has been indicted and agreed to a plea deal. That would be especially satisfactory.

And nearly impossible, so if Mueller has been able to force Stone into a plea agreement, then we'd know it's all over for Trump. More likely Mueller has played Stone to get him to indirectly flip on Trump, so that his case won't depend on anything Stone says directly. This is why Mueller went after Corsi and other Stone affiliates.

 

[Copernicus]

I was under impression that Putin liked Trump so much that he would have made him POTUS for free. Besides, deal never materialized, I wonder why.

If he did that, he'd have had no leverage/kompromat. As it is, Putin knew very well that Trump had been lying to his drooling followers about his "Russia Project" during his entire campaign, and Trump know that Pootie could have dropped the bomb on him at any point. Now, that bomb is somewhat de-fused by Mueller. Trump's behavior going forward will give us a clue about whether there is additional kompromat that is still in play - peepee tapes etc.. Care to guess whether that is the case?

It is hardly a kompromat, and hardly worthy to be called a lie. Trump can say that negotiations is not a dealings. Chris Cuomo gave that excuse.

A serious problem for Trump here is that offering a $50 million penthouse to Putin has the appearance of a bribe, which is illegal under US law. American companies are technically forbidden from doing that, although there are some ways to get around it. (For example, US corporations often open up facilities in foreign countries as a quid pro quo for selling goods. Boeing and Airbus keep opening factories up in China and handing over industrial secrets to foreign operations.) It does not matter whether the deal goes through. Merely offering the bribe is illegal.

 

[Underseer]

[YOUTUBE]v6lOZorhNF8[/YOUTUBE]

Trump broke the law on Twitter again, this time witness tampering.

Why would he break the law and expose himself to prosecution for witness tampering if not to cover up a much bigger crime that he is guilty of?

Oh.

Right.

It's all a conspiracy against Trump.

Uhm, a conspiracy by Jewish bankers? Yes, that must be it. A sinister conspiracy involving Jewish bankers, Hillary Clinton, and Obama's secret weather weapon. QAnon will expose the whole thing soon. Very soon. I'm sure of it. [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Underseer]

It is hardly a kompromat, and hardly worthy to be called a lie. Trump can say that negotiations is not a dealings. Chris Cuomo gave that excuse.

A serious problem for Trump here is that offering a $50 million penthouse to Putin has the appearance of a bribe, which is illegal under US law. American companies are technically forbidden from doing that, although there are some ways to get around it. (For example, US corporations often open up facilities in foreign countries as a quid pro quo for selling goods. Boeing and Airbus keep opening factories up in China and handing over industrial secrets to foreign operations.) It does not matter whether the deal goes through. Merely offering the bribe is illegal.

Yes, but Trump was sent to us by God Himself, therefore it is not illegal when Trump does it, just like it's not illegal when Trump commits witness tampering on Twitter, therefore Mueller just as a big ol' nothingburger! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Underseer]

They All Lied. They’re All Guilty.

It has to be said.

Treason is now a partisan issue.

Remember that the next time Republican voters pretend to be outraged because someone isn't being patriotic enough for their tastes.

- - - Updated - - -

They All Lied. They’re All Guilty.

It has to be said.

This seems small person to person, but when you look at it in the aggregate, it again gives the impression that some very shady stuff occurred, because yes, they ALL lied. Including the President's son... and the President who dictated the White House letter on the meeting in Trump Tower.

Yes, but they all lied because they are being persecuted by a sinister Jewish banker conspiracy!!!!!! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[barbos]

It is hardly a kompromat, and hardly worthy to be called a lie. Trump can say that negotiations is not a dealings. Chris Cuomo gave that excuse.

A serious problem for Trump here is that offering a $50 million penthouse to Putin has the appearance of a bribe, which is illegal under US law.

Yes, I know, Also I heard american companies say law is unfair because EU has no such law and hence have advantage over them.
Problem for Muller is to prove that bribe was in fact offered. Trump goons can say it was not offered it was just their marketing plan.

American companies are technically forbidden from doing that, although there are some ways to get around it. (For example, US corporations often open up facilities in foreign countries as a quid pro quo for selling goods. Boeing and Airbus keep opening factories up in China and handing over industrial secrets to foreign operations.) It does not matter whether the deal goes through. Merely offering the bribe is illegal.

Of course corruption is equally rampant everywhere, It's just much less obvious/more subtle in US.

 

[Elixir]

Of course corruption is equally rampant everywhere, It's just much less obvious/more subtle in US.

What are you - in a coma? There has never been such blatant corruption here - or anywhere - as we have now, embodied in the fat orange traitor.
Tajikistan, eat your heart out!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Of course corruption is equally rampant everywhere, It's just much less obvious/more subtle in US.

It doesn't matter whether or not criminal activity may be "rampant everywhere." What matters is if you get caught.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So barbos has gone from denial to fait accompli?

 

[barbos]

Of course corruption is equally rampant everywhere, It's just much less obvious/more subtle in US.

What are you - in a coma? There has never been such blatant corruption here - or anywhere - as we have now, embodied in the fat orange traitor.
Tajikistan, eat your heart out!

Again, it's not me, it's you. People in Tajikistan at least aware of the level of corruption, whereas you, think it's lower than it actually is.

 

[barbos]

So barbos has gone from denial to fait accompli?

What are you - in a coma? I did not deny anything, I merely pointed out that it would probably be hard to prove.

 

[Elixir]

Of course corruption is equally rampant everywhere, It's just much less obvious/more subtle in US.

What are you - in a coma? There has never been such blatant corruption here - or anywhere - as we have now, embodied in the fat orange traitor.
Tajikistan, eat your heart out!

Again, it's not me, it's you. People in Tajikistan at least aware of the level of corruption, whereas you, think it's lower than it actually is.

Watching a little too much RT, I see...

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, I know, Also I heard american companies say law is unfair because EU has no such law and hence have advantage over them.
Problem for Muller is to prove that bribe was in fact offered. Trump goons can say it was not offered it was just their marketing plan.

Actually, it is a bit more complicated than you seem to think. Such laws are in force for Europe and other countries. See European Union - Corruption.

White collar crime is always difficult to prove, but it would likely be very difficult for Trump's lawyers to convince a court that giving a free penthouse to a foreign potentate so that other apartments could be sold to his toadies was a sales strategy and not an attempt to get the potentate to approve the deal. Bribes are offered in the expectation that the briber gets something from the bribed. Putin gets his fancy new digs. Trump gets to sell a lot of property at inflated prices. In this case, Putin probably realized that the scheme was too hare-brained to work, and he didn't need a fancy new home. He wanted other things from Trump.

American companies are technically forbidden from doing that, although there are some ways to get around it. (For example, US corporations often open up facilities in foreign countries as a quid pro quo for selling goods. Boeing and Airbus keep opening factories up in China and handing over industrial secrets to foreign operations.) It does not matter whether the deal goes through. Merely offering the bribe is illegal.

Of course corruption is equally rampant everywhere, It's just much less obvious/more subtle in US.

I will admit that bribery is far more blatant and obvious in Russia, having witnessed it for myself. However, I agree that it is also rampant in the US and that most Americans fail to recognize blatant bribery--e.g. campaign contributions by rich donors and businesses--as equivalent to less subtle forms of it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There's also the distinct possibility that this was a deliberate move on Putin's part to provide a cover story for Trump at a critical early stage. Along the lines of, "Why would I give up an opportunity to make half a billion dollars if Putin and I were collaborating?"

As I had pointed out in another thread (or maybe this one; they are all blurring together at this point), Trump had already made millions from various Russians prior to this particular deal. As ex KGB, doing something like this--a fake deal meant to provide a cover story--would be a standard part of establishing a newly activated asset's cover.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I will admit that bribery is far more blatant and obvious in Russia, having witnessed it for myself. However, I agree that it is also rampant in the US and that most Americans fail to recognize blatant bribery--e.g. campaign contributions by rich donors and businesses--as equivalent to less subtle forms of it.

Here, we call it 'free speech'.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I agree that it is also rampant in the US and that most Americans fail to recognize blatant bribery--e.g. campaign contributions by rich donors and businesses--as equivalent to less subtle forms of it.

The problem, of course, is in demonstrating that someone who has taken a campaign contribution or donation has actually in turn changed their vote or otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with their own political ideology.

I have used this example many times, but it's perfectly appropriate as there were many such insinuations lobbed at Hillary Clinton regarding what is actually just a normal industry (i.e., being paid for giving a speech).

Obama's top donor (in the aggregate) was Goldman Sachs in 2008. Something on the order of a total of $1 million. He then famously shat on them (and the rest of the finance world) and Goldman Sachs shifted to backing Romney as a result. We all know how well that worked out for them.

The point being that it's not a bribe per se until the person receiving it does something expressly for the payee that the receiver would not have normally done and/or would be against their stated political policies/beliefs/tenets, etc. Parsing that is where the problem lies, which is why it' such easy, low-hanging fruit for Republicans to use against any Democrat, when the irony is, it is almost always a bribe when it comes to Republicans and rarely when it comes to Democrats.

Probably because Republicans are generally sociopaths who have no moral compass, so doing whatever anyone pays them to do is just par for their course. And if you have no moral compass to begin with, then pretty much ANY "contribution" is a bribe just axiomatically.

 

[Gun Nut]

I agree that it is also rampant in the US and that most Americans fail to recognize blatant bribery--e.g. campaign contributions by rich donors and businesses--as equivalent to less subtle forms of it.

The problem, of course, is in demonstrating that someone who has taken a campaign contribution or donation has actually in turn changed their vote or otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with their own political ideology.

I have used this example many times, but it's perfectly appropriate as there were many such insinuations lobbed at Hillary Clinton regarding what is actually just a normal industry (i.e., being paid for giving a speech).

Obama's top donor (in the aggregate) was Goldman Sachs in 2008. Something on the order of a total of $1 million. He then famously shat on them (and the rest of the finance world) and Goldman Sachs shifted to backing Romney as a result. We all know how well that worked out for them.

The point being that it's not a bribe per se until the person receiving it does something expressly for the payee that the receiver would not have normally done and/or would be against their stated political policies/beliefs/tenets, etc. Parsing that is where the problem lies, which is why it' such easy, low-hanging fruit for Republicans to use against any Democrat, when the irony is, it is almost always a bribe when it comes to Republicans and rarely when it comes to Democrats.

Probably because Republicans are generally sociopaths who have no moral compass, so doing whatever anyone pays them to do is just par for their course. And if you have no moral compass to begin with, then pretty much ANY "contribution" is a bribe just axiomatically.

I think you are wring about that. Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
Nothing in that legal definition says anything about the actual outcome... Trump could have been influenced without actually doing anything different.... he was just not influenced enough to do something different, for example.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think you are wring about that. Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
Nothing in that legal definition says anything about the actual outcome...

You want to check that again? Maybe start with "to influence the actions of an official or other person..." If you are the one giving me money with the intent to influence my actions, then you are attempting to bribe me. If I accept the money, but I have no idea what your motives are and it does not influence my actions in any undue way, then I am not accepting a bribe; I'm just accepting (from my perspective) a donation/contribution.

Here, try this (my bold):

Bribes are always intended to influence or alter the action of various individuals and go hand in hand with both political and public corruption. No written agreement is necessary to prove the crime of bribery, but a prosecutor generally must show corrupt intent.
...
The federal government, however, has very specific elements that it uses to prosecute cases of bribery against federal employees. These include the following:

1. The individual being bribed is a "public official," which includes rank-and-file federal employees on up to elected officials;
2. A "thing of value" has been offered, whether it's tangible (such as cash) or intangible (such as the promise of influence or official support);
3. There is an "official act" that may be influenced by a bribe (such as pending legislation that may have a direct impact on the party offering the bribe);
4. The public official has the authority or power to commit the official act (for instance, the official is a senator who is voting on a particular piece of legislation);
5. There must be the establishment of intent on the part of the bribing party to get a desired result (the intent to sway the vote by handing over an envelope full of cash); and
6. The prosecution must establish a causal connection between the payment and the act.

In other words, there must be more than just a suspicious coincidence. Did the payment influence the act? Prosecutors will have to prove this.

 

[Underseer]

Again, it's not me, it's you. People in Tajikistan at least aware of the level of corruption, whereas you, think it's lower than it actually is.

Watching a little too much RT, I see...

Is that a bad thing? The Russians would never lie to us!

You can always trust what the Russians have to say. The Cold War was just a big misunderstanding caused by people not trusting the Russians enough.

Hey, speaking of Russians, here's a segment on Butina. It's schadenfreudilicious!

[YOUTUBE]B6_0170l_5k[/YOUTUBE]