Blog powered by Typepad

« Pheeeeeew, don't mess with 'MDA', Mr. President | Main | Your Monday Funnies: 10.12.18 »

Sunday, 09 December 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The arrest of the Chinese lady is part of the FBI-CIA attempt to get Trump before he gets them. A successful deal with the China would be a triumph for Trump and they fear that.

Sky News, the Beeb etc waste no opportunity to reinforce the fact that the Western MSM are indeed the 'enemy' of the people. They seem to relish in that fact.

James Comey is the face of the initial 'collusion' regarding Trump. 'Russians' became a false target as a cover for Clinton/Obama/Justice/State Dept original collusion.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/judge-suggests-justice-state-colluded-to-protect-hillary-clinton-in-email-scandal

FDR moved the fleet from San Diego to Hawaii in an attempt to intimidate the Japanese. In hindsight it was a questionable decision, but how does it establish culpability for anything?

The Republican attempt to change the subject from various charges and convictions by Mueller and the SDNY back to Hillary's emails, for chrissakes, is hilarious. If it's the best they can do, their future does not look good.

Bob,

One mustn't ever place an and in a single sentence wherein appears the word Mueller or the acronym SDNY. Doing so suggests an equivalency (which, such as the US MSM, absolutely thrives on - has kept the lights on in the Maddow studio these past two years for damn sure).

Mueller's, like Starr's before his, awarded role is to create the appearance of a crime to wrap around persons repellent to an opposition group in the hope that group curries larger favor next time.

The SDNY's (like all other "regularly existing" judicial districts) purpose is to ferret out the individual[s] responsible for an actual crime.

JK,

Limiting affairs to make for a convenient argument doesn't really work either:

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller has so far indicted 34 people and three companies as part of his probe into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election.

Among them are five former Trump officials, all of whom have pleaded guilty to criminal charges, and 26 Russian nationals."

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-collusion-investigation-indicted-robert-mueller-1244835

Read that again: "... five former Trump officials, all of whom have pleaded guilty to criminal charges..."

So far Trump is actually in more trouble from the SDNY, which has evidence he was responsible for breaking federal campaign laws:

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-federal-crime-michael-cohen-1250466

It's a real stretch it's all for appearance or only political.

Grasping at straws won't save you Bob.

David, we're you not in a traffic problem outside London just the other day?

Oh hayyyelll Bob,

Papadopoulos pleads "Guilty your Honor!" facing a possible three to five and a million point five monetary assessment:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1007341/download

Judge say's "Mr. Papadopoulos owing to the seriousness of these charges I sentence you to fourteen days and one thousand dollars!"

(Heck by the time Papadopoulos goes through the eleven day processing time federal incarcerating procedures take it'll be time to start his release procedures.)

Flynn it would appear is likely to get nearabouts the same.

Manafort of course faces sentencing for crimes committed during the time he worked for the Podesta Group in addition to the same charge Papadopoulos got two weeks "hard time" for and Mueller's recommended "little to no time" for the dastardly Flynn so who knows - possibly given Rick Gates pled to the very same things Manafort's accused, but not yet convicted for, the ultimate sentencing will be similar.

Cohen's pled to charges leveled at the district courts level so nothing the Special Counsel has personally and officially to do with - yet.

Far as the Russian Nationals are concerned there've been no pleas whatsoever and last time I checked the whole of the US Justice system is predicated on, until such time as a conviction is rendered by a panel of their peers those Russians are, for all intents and purposes - innocent.

Trump in 2020!

Care to place a wager Bob? David can hold the funds for us until that year's November elections. I'll open with a Benjamin. Money where your mouth [keyboard] is Bob?

Up2L8,

Maybe not, but I've already lived the fun part of life, so I don't care all that much.

JK,

You do get the point of plea bargaining, right? The smaller fish get off to get the big fish that's rotting from the head down. Except for Manafort, who lied after he got a deal which, you gotta admit, is pushing it.

Forget about wagering. I'd never bet against the Dems' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I'd also never bet against Republicans gaming the system enough to win. Maybe next time they'll collude with China too.

Bob,

Back at the very tail of the last century I personally paid a lawyer just abit over $33, 000 to get shed of myself a legal wife. And that was at a mere state's courts circuit level. I quite honestly say now these years hence had I, been given the opportunity to "plea to a lesser charge" I'da jumped at it.

Now had my divorce proceeding been threatened to take place at the federal courts level where I was even then aware lawyers regularly charged hourly rates at levels I was spending three months in the salt mines to earn the down payment for a house on - damned if I wouldna pled to getting out of paying the damned lawyers for damned sure.

Not saying that's what Flynn (or Papadoupolos) did but I imagine it was a consideration.

'Whiters', in American terms I suppose deepest darkest 'Zummerzet' is "outside London" but happily in English terms London is on the other side of the moon! Mind you, the tractors round here do cause the odd hold-up!

Bob,
from afar all I can see in the great Russian interference probe is that they have got guys for anything but Russian collusion.
The whole thing stinks.

Tom Malcolmson,

Not true. Here's a summary of only Flynn's role:

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/michael-flynns-russia-timeline/

The fact he's getting off with no sentence probably means he had a lot of information to bargain with Mueller. If you want more detail:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials

If you don't like the sources type "links trump campaign russia" (without the quotes) in your favorite search engine.

JK,

That's not as bad as $130,000.00 for one roll in the hay with a porn star. Count your blessings.

Bob I'm here to to ya, the divorce didn't occur until ten years after the fact.

$130K is chump change. Now the multi-millions Obama era illegal campaign shenanigan ...

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784

That'd be a horse of a far far different color. Apparently - wonder whether the SDNY even batted an eyelash?

Mr. Malcolmson,

Don't waste your valuable time in all, since its from "factcheck dot org" Bob chooses to provide, anyway - all that wasteful verbiage.

Here, in a nutshell is what Flynn pled to:

"[Flynn] made materially false statements during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") on January 24, 2017."

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

Bob's link probably says the same thing except in ten thousand words or so. Likely the word 'Russia' is thrown in a time or two too.

Eh ... Bob?

That there that you typed above, "The Republican attempt to change the subject from various charges and convictions by Mueller and the SDNY back to Hillary's emails, for chrissakes, is hilarious."

You sure its 'the Republicans' exactly and solely responsible for your bein' afflicted with the hilarities? Reason I ask is a'cause:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1242-54

Might start that little read Bob by scrolling down to the very end and discern who, and what office the person occupies, afore you go blaming the Republicans for bringing up the subject of Hillary's emails at this particular time. Lately here Bob I think you'd have to admit you been really bangin' on 'those people' getting righteously after the turribul people.

JK,

I remember that and am not shocked the Obama campaign tried to pull some fast ones. After all, it got its start in Chicago, where all the genuine dirty political tricks were invented by Hizzonner Richard J. Daley, who made that Boss Tweed guy look like the amateur he was ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Tweed ).

Hillary has been out of the picture for a few years now and her emails have been litigated to death. The R's might keep a hook in their dead enders with more of the same, but that's about it. Maybe they'll have a few more Benghazi investigations in the Senate next year too. Apparently they've got nothing else.

At this point bringing up Obama or Clinton is just whataboutism. You're trying to ignore Trump's cooperating with a hostile foreign power to win the White House and claim other pols are just as bad. It's not an easy sell.

Bob,

"At this point bringing up Obama or Clinton is just whataboutism."

Hardly. The shenanigans at issue in the court's order (link provided by me in my comment of 0513 GMT) occurred pre-candidate Trump.

And, there's a reason all of the (so far) offenses the President in cahoots with US person[s] have the limiting statute (better known as 'the statute of limitations') clock set to run out in five years; while the limiting statute at issue in the DC District Court is set to run out in forty.

Maybe the SEC will finally get Hillary on those cattle futures trades too. In the mean time hold your lantern high, Diogenes.

The cattle futures trades were covered in the Starr Report - see pages 20,642 through 20, 747.

Bob?

Not to beat the proverbial dead horse but, recall your asking me (12/9 @ 1955) "You do get the point of plea bargaining, right?"

Well, as we were debating the merits of Flynn's plea I was operating at something of a deficit - all I had were press reports and, nada, in the way of actual, courts admitted evidence - that changed with yesterday's release of a 'Defendant's [Flynn] Memorandum.'

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5526092/DEFENDANT-s-MEMORANDUM.pdf

You'll Bob recall my answer to you of 2025 that same date speculating as to possible motivations for entering into plea bargains other than that which you seemed to prefer?

Well I Bob ain't had the time to give the document its due diligence concerning the speculated reason I only offered as reply however, I did find something other than what press reports offered as a basis for the press' (speculative) concluding that "Flynn is getting off light owing to his substantial cooperation"?

Pages 8 & 9 under Item B.

You asked me Bob if I understand plea bargains - I ask you if you understand Miranda?

I don't understand Miranda to any great legal depth, JK. However, I doubt it's expected to be advised before someone has decided to lie. And from page 10:

"General Flynn’s respect for the law is demonstrated by his decision to accept responsibility for his actions soon after the Special Counsel’s Office reached out to him and sought his cooperation. Even when circumstances later came to light that prompted extensive public debate about the investigation of General Flynn, including revelations that certain FBI officials involved in the January 24 interview of General Flynn were themselves being investigated for misconduct, General Flynn did not back away from accepting responsibility for his actions."

Apparently he and his lawyers don't feel he should get off on a technicality, and appear to be making a case for mercy. Even if he doesn't get off with no jail time, it's a good bet it will be less than Cohen's 3 years.

You're probably Bob, unfamiliar with a LE requirement known as a 302?

Applies to federal agencies too by the way.

Let's not beat this horse anymore whattaya say Bob; I figure (probably we'll be long dead and gone when "they" get around to it - given the backlog) there'll be a judicial review?

I could - but I don't wanna - get into my files backup for this sorta thing coming up (you've never Bob, thought my archiving calls up dependent on a "JK gots the most amazing memory for a hillbilly!" have you?). ... I seem to recall one of the let-go/re-assigned [fired] people at the FBI [maybe DoJ] mentioning something about so of the 'related questionings' not conforming to the rules.

I will search on account of a bet though - which Bob, I recall you never?

Never heard of a 302. I'm aware of how right wing outlets are covering Flynn as a victim, though. Some of them will keep it up no matter how many Trump cronies flip or go to jail. You might have heard today about Trump's appropriately named associate David Pecker. He's the chief Pecker of the National Enquirer, which is rumored to have a safe full of dirt on Trump's illegal activities. The news was broken by that left wing rag the WSJ (non-Americans: That's sarcasm. The WSJ editorial board is famously right wing):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pecker-granted-immunity-in-cohen-case-1535041976?mod=e2tw

Trump is very likely cooked. Now it's just a matter of how things play out.

Might surprise Bob to hear I've not watched any tv stuff, except the 30 minute networks presentations at the 5:30 pm (central time) in over a month. Haven't watched any of the cablenews primetime since about a week after the last elections go-round. While I'm perfectly capable of doing my own weather forecasting I can usually be depended upon to be in front of the tv when Abby D is on - her shoulder-to-hips ratio is a "hardly to be missed" nice tits too. (Have to keep the volume down though, her voice makes my dog howl.)

Haven't regularly read the WSJ since I was dating the FDIC investigator (S&L timeframe) and haven't in an "assiduous manner" read any National Enquirer since the aliens spirited Elvis outta CIA custody and off to the Kuiper Belt.

Have paid attention to Andy McCarthy and David French of the NRO though and agree with both the President's in for a rough patch or two. Figure though still, Trump in 2020! though he might well say "To hell with it!" or Melania might say it for him.

302s are the filings made prior to a judicial review. Generally speaking, the grunts of LE don't know that unless been mentioned by name in an overturned decision which, takes place prior to either the LE person directly involved or the prosecutor taking retirement. In the case the law enforcement agency personnel involved are federal, the investigatory section bears the designation - makes for "easier file[ing] placement" on the offchance the file clerk speaks/reads English as a second language.

Equal opportunity employment doncha know ...

JK,

I believe you. I, on the other hand, am a news junkie. I watch some TV news but get most from the internet, and I try to look at how a variety of sources are covering the stories they cover. It doesn't necessarily make me happy, but it's something interesting to do in old age/retirement, especially during Midwestern winters. Was Elvis abducted before or after he was spotted in the Michigan Burger King?

Speaking of hot women, this one is thinking of running for president as a Dem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

Since there might be 40 contenders in the race, I hope they decide to have a swimsuit competition at some of their debates. That would narrow it to Kamala Harris and Tulsi right quick.

I wish Tulsi weren't from Hawaii but still, she ain't no Abby G. N'matter if either decide to er, drop their "hat" in the ring I might could be convinced to donate a little sumpin' by way of encouraging their enthusiasm.

Didn't say Bob, I don't keep up with [particular pieces of] the news just that tv ain't my go-to-source of late. I been supplementing my income keeping abreast of documentation an' making every attempt to be neutral an' crosswise to that intent tv is toousually a bad influence.

Careful wishin' for swimsuits Bob. I hear Uncle Joe keeps a passel of 'em nearby an' only in his size.

Oops. Abby D. I'd allowed my name recalling equipment to be overridden by my G-strings for Tulsi 'n Abby toolbelt.

Ummm Bob?

Mentioned trying to "look at how a variety of sources are covering the stories"?

I'd recommend the sources a hefty number of our 'influencers' depend on to render their twists o' the screws - recently there's come a deluge not least a new IG report just this morning [h/t LB]. (One wonders whether the LtG's lawyers [knew beforehand] since lately appearing before the judge with the history of putting the screws to gummit prosecutors for not being 'particularly forthcoming' when it came to throwing out Ted Stevens plea deal and then going on to, vacate the whole damn history of that particular judicial process?)

Anyway Bob, the IG's effort (the 3rd of 6) this time has to do with a demoted and re-assigned FBI agent by the name of Strzok who, it ought be borne in mind happened to be the exact same (pure coincidence?) fellow who, since he conducted the January 2017 Flynn interview, was responsible for filing the appropriate 302.

https://www.justice.gov/

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/

https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/judge-emmet-g-sullivans-court-web-page

You notice Bob, SoD's amazing claim of 13 December 2018 at 13:38 where he's insisted he's read 585 pages before his country's screw-twister's put their claws to it? Damned admirable effort to my estimation.

And if your midwestern winter is anything like my midsouthern winter ...

I bookmarked the DoJ site and will look at it from time to time. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at about Strozk. As far as I know he's a libertarian type who doesn't like politicians, though some writers have zeroed in on his dislike for a particular one, seeing as how it's highly convenient to their story line.

For all I know SoD read the thing twice. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, huh? Search engines were not forthcoming with a picture of a weather bunny named Abby.

To tell you the truth Bob I'ma little hesitant where Abby's particularly concerned as, I definitely wouldn't wish'er to confuse my "implications" as Mika apparently did yesterday ... gots to do with the call-letters of the local network she's managed to ... hmmm, get me "addicted to" and my mentioning her, ratio ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ8u5i1hSp8

It helps to have an eighty inch flatscreen and the proper rotation. Oh. And maybe 'green-screen cancellation'

The station's call-letters ... would you believe KY3?

Considering the sideways video, hoodie and dance I'll give her "cute". I reserve the right to not judge your preferences in what to make slippery.

Well she is matured ten years on from sideways.

Still rather frenetic though, bless her cotton socks.

I simply couldn't Bob, hit the more current posts for, I should hope obvious reasons,

"Over here' the various investigations aren't just about the corruption, incompetence and criminality of the current administration."

Let's remember the Clinton era investigation resulted in 18 individuals being convicted shall we? So far the Mueller's got what - 3? Four if we agree Flynn's to be receiving his in a few hours - maybe (very likely)?

Mueller's gonna have to really get on the ball. In my opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.