Below is my column in USA Today on the Rick Gates indictment and his potential as a witness for the prosecution in the Mueller investigation. The other obvious concern for the defense should be General Michael Flynn. It is curious that there was no indictment of Flynn given his similar alleged violations involving work as a foreign agent. Flynn would also be a natural target for prosecutors in seeking cooperative witnesses. With George Papadopoulos’ plea and cooperation, other witnesses will start to consider whether they will get a chair when the music stops. The President’s attack on Papadopoulos certainly sends a chilling message for those who might follow his lead, but these are heavy potential charges for potential targets.
Here is the column:
It is the Washington version of the Academy Awards. In the midst of the latest high-profile investigation in the Beltway, press and pundits spent the weekend speculating on whose names would be in the indictment envelope delivered by special counsel Robert Mueller.
Now we know. The winners are former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his former deputy Rick Gates. Manafort was no surprise, but Gates’ selection in the supporting actor category was the most notable aspect of the indictment.
The indictments against the men contain 12 counts that include conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading Foreign Agents Registration Act statements, false statements and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.
The charges move the Russian investigation into a new and dangerous phase for the White House. The risk is not that the charges present a clear and present danger to President Trump or his inner circle. The charges are focused on transactions unrelated to the campaign. However, that is not the point. Such charges are meant to concentrate the minds of people such as Manafort and Gates. These charges can easily result in a decade in jail for the men, ages 68 and 45 respectively. For men who have never been charged with a crime, this is the big gulp moment that prosecutors hope will get them to consider flipping as cooperative witnesses.
One of Mueller’s top aides, Andrew Weissmann, has a reputation for flipping witnessesand stretching the criminal code to pressure targets. With two middle-age businessmen in the dock, Weissmann no doubt likes his odds. However, all attention is likely to focus on Gates.
Gates could well seal a case against his former associate if he were to go all in on the prosecution’s narrative. If he could implicate Manafort and potentially others, Gates could well walk with little or no jail time. This is why charging him with Manafort maximized the pressure. For Gates, going to trial with Manafort is a chilling prospect alone. Manafort has long had a controversial reputation in Washington as someone who actively cashed in with shady international figures and clients.
I had a friend who warned me that Manafort was not someone I wanted to have dealings with. That is why his choice as the campaign manager (and an effective spokesman) was so surprising. Indeed, a White House source dismissed the indictment on the ground that these were “bad guys” before and they were “bad guys” when they left. Of course, in the middle was a decision to hire both “bad guys.” That is hardly a winning narrative.
The problem for these men is that these charges are already difficult to defend against. They largely deal with the failure to file needed papers or failing to reveal required information. For jurors, such charges are the easiest to convict on. When you add a narrative of living the high life off money from shady characters such as Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovych, the combination of the technical and the salacious can be fatal.
Even if he were going to cooperate, Manafort might not have much to offer on Trump. He could end up the highest-ranking defendant, and prosecutors are not likely to trade away charges lightly against such a figure. Manafort has the unfortunate status of being the matinee defendant for Mueller at this point. Unless Manafort could bag Trump, he is too much of a prize for Mueller to toss away in exchange for avoiding a trial.
That brings us back to Gates.
The prosecutors will resist any effort to sever the trials of these two men. Gates will have to answer these charges sitting next to a guy who will be radioactive as a codefendant. The only lingering inducement for Gates would be the hope of a pardon at the end of this process.
If there are no charges brought on Russian collusion and Trump is effectively cleared, the president may be tempted to use his pardon authority as he did with the controversial former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. Any such pardon would be equally unwise, but Trump has shown the intestinal fortitude to grant such relief despite the political backlash. That could be enough for Gates to hold firm in a united front with the least optimal codefendant.
Manafort and Gates have long enjoyed the status of power brokers in Washington. They are part of the “made men” of the Beltway — people who could get things done with a single call to the right people. These are men who made millions on their relationships. They are genetically averse to standing alone. As Henry Hill said in the final scene in Goodfellas, you are left “an average nobody” and “get to live the rest of (your) life like a schnook.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
FishWings it is not often that you make a comment that demonstrates some degree of intelligence, but wanting your guns back shows a spark of energy in your brain. However, I don’t think you should be permitted to have a gun because using one correctly requires more intelligence then what we can see on this blog.
Possibly he possesses more intelligence than the average found here in the common room of Bedlam.
It is the common room of Bedlam for your side of the aisle so you probably know best, but that doesn’t speak well for the rest on your side.
David Benson – if this truly was Bedlem, we would be more concerned about the level of insanity than the level of intelligence.
Mueller must end up in prison beside Comey, Hillary, Lynch, Rosenstein, McCabe Weissmann etc
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/wow-hannity-reveals-muellers-right-hand-man-signed-off-clinton-uranium-one-case-video/
“Any such pardon would be equally unwise, but Trump has shown the intestinal fortitude to grant such relief despite the political backlash.” Intestinal fortitude? This quote alone shows your extreme bias, Jon. Chump is dumb, irresponsible, and narcissistic. Someone with intestinal fortitude is someone who is brave enough to do the right thing, despite knowing of adverse consequences. A pardon wouldn’t be the right thing. Are you hoping for a judgeship, Jon?
Is there supposed to be some sort of insight in there?
“Are you hoping for a judgeship, Jon?”
Yes, would be my guess.
Whining will get you nowhere. Didn’t your parents’ teach you anything?
Whining??
T rump whined about a bone spur. He got out of da military service. So don’t be sure it does not work for da privileged kids.
ken – unless you have a bone spur you have no idea how painful they can be. I have one that kept me out of the service, not on my heel, but on my neck. Now, it had to show up on my doctor’s x-rays and the draft physical x-rays. However, they did make me 1-Y, which meant they took every able-bodied male first and then took me to be a clerk, etc to free one of them up to be cannon fodder.
Today, I can tell changes in the weather by my neck. If the barometer drops, the pain increases, if the barometer rises, the pain lessens
He got da 4 deferments for da college and one for da little spur.
What’s anyone’s wager that Ken is David Benson’s alter-ego?
He received a student deferment to attend college which was renewed 3x until he’d finished his degree. Annual freshman enrollment of young men at that time was running at about 880,000 a year at a time when male age cohorts were averaging about 1.85 million persons. That is, 47.5% of each cohort was receiving some sort of post-secondary schooling, so it was not at all unusual, though, of course, some of those enrolling did so after completing military service. Cross-sectionally 11% of those of draft age had a 2-S deferment at any one time.
During that run of years, about 13.5% of a typical male cohort was conscripted, about 25% enlisted, A cross sectional assessment undertaken in 1968 concluded that of those of military age, 11.5% were categorically disqualified (IV-F) and 14.5% contingently disqualified (I-Y), Trump among them. He was sent to the back of the queue and then, when the draft lottery was instituted his number was high enough that he was effectively exempt (along with most people to whom the 1969 lottery applied).
And, of course, David Benson was never in the military.
You would lose such a wager.
Ken – college deferments were automatic and continued as long as you were in school. If you dropped out of school or graduated, your draft board was notified. You got a draft message the next month.
After 1968 or thereabouts, college deferments were limited to 4 years. Graduate school deferments were eliminated. There may have been an exception for medical school.
Also, as long as you registered for class for the semester, you could drop out and the draft board would not touch you for that semester. You could then register for the next semester and retain your deferment. Also, the draft board usually did not bother you go for a year after high school, allowing people to take what is now known as a gap year.
Amazing how one can remember those things.
IIRC, post-baccalaureate deferments disappeared at the end of 1967. Trump finished in 4 years and never enrolled in graduate school.
The 1969 draft lottery governing conscription for calendar year 1970 applied to anyone born after 1943 but prior to 1951 who had not yet served. The 1970 lottery applied to anyone born in 1951 who had not yet served; the 1971 lottery to anyone born in 1952 who had not yet served; the 1972 lottery to anyone born in 1953 who had not yet served. You were under the lottery conscripted during the calendar year you turned 20. Fewer than 700 people from the 1953 cohort were conscripted, the last entering the service in June 1973.
And I thought my memory was good about such things.
Vince Jankoski – I think he looked it up. 😉 Those of us who were draft eligible just worried about our a**es, not anyone else’s.
DSS you seem to change your name faster than that Nigerian Prince who keeps writing me.
You forgot to call your president fat. Are you slacking today?
From all I’ve read, the crimes of Manafort and Gates bear no relationship with the Russian Collusion Delusion. So, my sense is that Trump needn’t trouble himself with these indictments or to consider pardons for either. On the other hand, a Flynn indictment might well prompt a Trump pardon. Have also read New Lawz analysis of the charges against Manafort, and the process was more than a tad muddled and irregular which could, according to NL, lead to many of the charges being tossed, if not summarily, then on appeal. Who knows. It’s become a side-show of epic proportions, this while the real scandals are virtually ignored by the power brokers in DC.. My question is: Where does Mueller go now since there is, reportedly, no linkage with Trump? Frankly, the show has become tedious and boring and, to a large extent, predictable.
When you take a walk as far as you can see, do you fall off the edge?
Maybe someone can help me out on this. I don’t see how failure to file some FBARs means much it it’s not linked to a fraudulent tax return — which I don’t see in the indictment. I thought the section on FBARs assumed as much.
The tax fraud is the foundational crime, and you might then file additional crimes on top of that involving FBARS and other matters.
My belief is that they held back on charging traditional tax evasion to see if he will plead guilty. If he decides to fight, he may experience the pleasure of a superceding indictment which includes tax evasion charges. It is very unusual to see Title 31 FBAR charges without Title 26 tax charges.
I can understand the Arpaio pardon better as a way to signal to Gates, et. al., that Trump will pardon people so that they should adhere to the omerta. Because who was Arpaio to Trump? Why pardon him at all?
One evil turn deserves another.
Manafort’s activities are no different than Trump’s. Trump weasels, goes bankrupt, maneuvers through city and state regulations with coercion, bribes, and stroking. Trump uses public money designed to help low income housing and translates it into mega projects for the mega wealthy. Somehow that’s the sign of the true American spirit to a lot of dupes. Dupes because they are the ones getting screwed. Trump is this country’s main oligarch and now as President is designing a cut in taxes that benefits primarily the top five percent; those who don’t need it. Using the old, proven false, trickle down argument, America gets duped again. It’s sort of like allocating funds to make the rich richer because in the back of every dupe’s mind is the dream of winning the lottery. One of the primary elements that keeps royalty in power is the association with the privilege. That’s my hero, man, king somehow designs a perverse ownership. The US is the only western country that allows the rich to buy the government. In all the more successful democracies, it is against the law to buy the politicians. But not here in the crucible of the ‘great experiment’. Somehow that keeps escaping a lot of Americans. The focus should be on why. Big cheap flat screen TVs, cheap gas, and a constant stroking of the ‘We’re number one’ ego might explain it.
Now for the anti Canadian tirades.
Issac, in your fictional world proof of guilt, isn’t needed. You are the author and therefore you draw the conclusions. However, this is a real world, not your fiction. You accused Trump of buying the government, but how much was spent on his behalf and how much spent by Hillary. It seems like the shorter bank account won over the longer one that spent so much more money and lost the election. Then one has to look at the media that took every pot shot at Trump they could and closed their eyes at Hillary’s thievery. Finally, one has to look at Hollywood and sports where it is obvious Hillary got most of that support for free.
The only things Trump had in his favor were he wasn’t Hillary, he had better policies and the American public voted for him. I guess that is what really gets your goat. You say to yourself ‘how can such stupid people vote for Trump when I (Issac) vote for Hillary? That is your problem. You think the American people are stupid, but they look at your response above and all the claims you made and ask you ‘where’s the beef’?
Allan, Well done!
It would be also interesting to know Isaac’s view on information obtained through “torture”. I would assume he would deem it not credible. The next question I would ask is, does he believe information obtained by squeezing criminals (cooperative witnesses) who have already lied legitimate?
Thanks, Jim22 and I find your response well done as well.
Using the old, proven false, trickle down argument, America gets duped again. It’s sort of like allocating funds to make the rich richer because in the back of every dupe’s mind is the dream of winning the lottery.
Speaking of allocating funds and dupes, how do you reconcile your roll model for campaign finance reform with what Donna Brazile discovered about Hillary Clinton’s campaign?
Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”
Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
Typical Trump blather, defend against the indefensible by pointing at something else. In Trump’s world two wrongs make a right, a thousand wrongs are negated by finding one wrong with something unrelated.
LOL! That giant sequoia sticking out of your eye makes every word you type a joke. Look in the archives and you will find my only allegiance is to the rule of law. I do not support any political party, agenda and certainly not any individual that undermines our nation’s national security and the rule of law. If you fail to see that as objective truth then you need either an ophthalmologist or a neurosurgeon.
You know what’s indefensible? The idea that Hillary Clinton should be the one occupying the White House as president instead of Donald Trump. I said for an entire year before the election: she’s not it, she never was, and she never will be. The voters are not as stupid as she thought. Lock her up already.
Isaac, If you wanted the Clinton’s to move BACK into the White House, then you voted for MORE oligarchy and corruption and incompetence in our government. By all means continue believing that Queen-Hillary-the-Corrupt was the better choice who had her coronation stolen from her by the Russians and Donald Trump.
There’s a song in the movie Frozen called ‘Let it Go.’ It might help. Baby steps.
Here’s a nice analysis of our “state-protecting” special prosecutor:
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/mueller-mugs-america-the-case-of-baby-george-papadopoulos/
Oh yeah, it appears that said special prosecutor was briefed on the Uranium One deal, but was good with it! You folks sure have been quick to shake off your Pavlov’s dog response to the Putin narrative quickly! He was the vampire until the Clinton revelations came out. Kind of like, “well Putin, you know… ahh… well…. he…. hey–did you see the news about the 30 year old Trumper who Mueller’s giving a whirlybird to!”
As long as Justice Gorsuch isn’t rolled up into this mess then…more popcorn please.
This is an interesting development. Although I disagree with the subheadline of the article:
“When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign.”
when I thought it was clear that the emails were NOT HACKED, but GIVEN UP, by that guy.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
Since your lot does not have the foresight as to how to deal with a President you do not like (other than the instant gratification of impeachment and removal), I’ll help you out.
A novel idea, get a candidate that has a message. Clean up your own mess before whining about the other guy.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-democratic-civil-war-is-getting-nasty-even-if-no-one-is-paying-attention
Manafort worked for Trump for about 2 months. I doubt he has dirt on him of note.
By some accounts, there has been since 1966 one successful prosecution of an offender contra the Foreign Agents Registration Act. See Andrew McCarthy’s commentary on the indictment: money laundering is a difficult charge to prove.
On the one hand, the law has for a generation permitted a crooked rent-seeker like Manafort to operate. Now it puts the squeeze on him in the service of the political goals of a segment of the establishment, with all of the abusive tactics the prosecutocracy is known to employ.
When we’re done here, can we please scarify the federal criminal code and recalibrate the sentencing rules therein (as well as providing for people to be indemnified for each count of an indictment the prosecution cannot prove)? There are about 30-odd areas wherein federal prosecution is not an improper usurpation of state courts and there’s no very defensible reason apparent why sentencing schedules for federal crimes should diverge so from the median in use for roughly comparable state crimes.
All extra lightweight stuff. Notice how they never go after the long time swamp creatures: Clintons, McCain, et al.
What about charges such as these? Didn’t need a special prosecutor to identify this conflict of interest. More in the name of continuing hostilities and MIC money:
“McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann had been paid $290,000 by the Saakashvili regime, from January 2007 to March 2008, to get Georgia into NATO, and thus acquire a priceless U.S. war guarantee to fight on Georgia‘s side in any clash with Russia.”
from http://buchanan.org/blog/marco-rubio-vs-rand-paul-4959
There are bigger, and real fish to fry out there. The hardcore partisan hacks who post here can’t distinguish “feelings” from “facts.” I bet you would be glad to have Bush back because he said unfavorable remarks about Trump recently. You can vote out Trump next time. Waiting on the Uranium One fiasco to see the light of day. You know… giving away strategic mineral access to a foreign country???
Plus, that moral crowd she likes to be with:
http://telzilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/5-days-later-hillary-clinton-breaks-silence-on-harvey-weinstein-1.jpg
Harv assaulted more of da women than even da T rump and da Bill O. They are bad men one and all.
HRC was good with him! Evidently his antics were not “news.”
Go back to sleep now Ken, thanks for checking in.
Haha. More Hillary subterfuge talk please. Wingnuts always entertain me.
Certainly I’m a wingnut, and that isn’t HRC. And she didn’t have anything to do with you-rainy-em 1 either. But, since that’s all you democrats have to offer, please proceed. Us (we) independent wingnuts will continue to care about real issues.
There is some kind of infighting at the WH being reported. It’s an in-law spat between Jared Kushner & Trump.
President Trump is reportedly blaming White House adviser Jared Kushner for his role in decisions that led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.
https://twitter.com/VanityFair/status/925773002922479620
Trump either made those statements about Kushner to Bannon, or he didn’t make those statements.
That’s one question.
The other question is how Vanity Fair and The Hill know the contents of a presumably private Trump-Bannon phone conversation.
They don’t. No one’s holding anyone accountable so they’ll concoct anything they care to out of whole cloth.
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/926261337155612672
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/926300119301087233
The cure to a politically motivated “independent” prosecution is the unfettered executive pardon. Let freedom ring.
Turley’s old sparring partner, John Yoo, wrote an op-ed in NYT yesterday advising Trump not to pardon Manafort et al on the grounds that Mueller has not yet implicated Trump in any wrongdoing, but that a pardon would make it seem as though Trump had something to hide.
What else besides his tax returns might Trump have to hide?
In Mueller I trust.
Trump could safely, politically, pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio because he had no direct dealings with Arpaio and the pardon appeared to be only due to Trump’s sympathy with Joe’s hardline attitudes. I don’t believe that Trump would be similarly safe if he pardoned Manafort, et al., because it would look like a cover-up.
Even Turley who defends the fascist at every turn should realize that Mueller is building a case against the fascist. Pick the lower hanging fruit, make them sing like canaries and somewhere he’ll get direct evidence against the fascist. Ahem, it doesn’t have to be the Russian collusion which did occur that brings the fascist down. Money laundering etc. will do the job, Tick tock, tick tock keep the cell unlocked in GitMo.
If I were a praying man, I would pray for this. Praise the lawd and pass the goddamned ammunition. There’s a place in GitMo waiting and if not certainly a place in hell, if there is a hell.
https://youtu.be/d7Uy0Uznw4E
NOT MY PRESIDENT! NEVER MY PRESIDENT!
My what a nasty mouth. I bet you can’t define the word “fascist.”
“If I were a praying man, I would pray for this. Praise the lawd and pass the goddamned ammunition. There’s a place in GitMo waiting and if not certainly a place in hell, if there is a hell.”
I hope you feel better after your unmedicated rant. I like how “Russian Collusion” isn’t that big of a deal now that HRC has been shown to be the biggest Russian cohort in our government. Feelings aren’t facts.
Where’s some good commentary from Brooklyn Bridge. Many of us miss his well-thought analyses. Unlike this one.
Yes. Please discuss this “Hillary” person at every opportunity. Pravda Faux News has set the example.
Okay. Thanks for the invitation to do so.
Here you go! This will surely make your day.
https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2017/11/snoop-dogg-jokes-about-death-of-trump-incurs-ire-of-number-maga/
“NOT MY PRESIDENT! NEVER MY PRESIDENT!”
OK, we got the point. You don’t like Trump and you are not an American.
Maybe they are hoping if they get Gates to flip on Manafort, he will flip on Trump. Mueller needs a big win, these are little fish.
As the professor points out, the government already has a strong case against Manafort, at least as far as some, maybe most, of the counts. So, why would they need Gates to flip on Manafort? Unless Gates, Manafort, or Papadopolous can provide incriminating evidence against someone in Trump’s inner circle, these indictments will be much ado about very little.
Vince, what if the charge of conspiracy against the United States includes possible violations of US sanctions against Russia after its 2014 annexation of the Crimea? The case might not hinge upon the Trump campaign seeking Russian help winning the 2016 election, but simply The Trump Organization trying to find a way to do business with the Russians without getting caught violating the US sanctions against Russia.
Manafort and Gates might have been uniquely positioned to assist The Trump Organization at skirting the sanctions regime. The Russian interference in the 2016 election might have inadvertently led Mueller’s investigation to possible sanction violations that are not connected to the Russian interference in the election. What if? What if? What if?
Late,
As you point out, that’s a lot of “what ifs”. The conspiracy count of the indictment pertains to only the filing charges. It does not mention anything about Russian sanctions. Indeed,the indictment is kind of odd in that it alleges conspiracy to obstruct etc. the functions of government by failing to file the appropriate papers. This is like indicting two spouses for conspiracy to obstruct the government by failing to file a joint tax return. Weird.
If the Russians were trying to skirt the sanctions and were trying to do it through elected officials or potentially elected officials, why not do it directly by getting the elected officials to lift the sanctions? I can see conspiring with private individuals, i.e., Gates and Manafort, to avoid sanctions, but why a Presidential candidate. Why not wait until after the election and directly overturn the sanctions?
Vince said, “As you point out, that’s a lot of “what ifs”.
Thanks for being civil, Vince. The main purpose of my hypothetical questions is to stir up a ruckus. As for your counter-questions, Trump could have issued an EO ending Obama’s EO imposing the sanctions on Russia up until the Senate tacked the Russia sanctions onto the Iran sanctions bill. So either Trump agreed with Obama’s Russia-sanctions EO or Trump was wisely wary of lifting the sanctions on Russia with his own EO in the midst of the whole Russia thing–you know, with Trump and the Russians.
Meanwhile, I’m guessing that Trump may have been no less surprised than anyone else at his “historic victory” over Hillary Clinton. So, if Trump expected to lose the election, his motives for seeking contacts with Russians may have had more to do with The Trump Organization’s business ventures than with the Trump campaign’s prospects for The Presidency. In which case, Trump may have sought ways to circumvent the sanctions for business purposes. Manafort and Gates may have provided Trump access to the Russian money-laudering networks in Cyprus, Lativa, Switzerland or Seychelles.
On the other hand, I may be overly infatuated with dramatic irony. What’s in Trump’s tax returns, anyhow?
If there was anything illegal in Trump’s tax returns the IRS would have been on him long ago. I suspect Trump’s reluctance to divulge his returns results from (1) he does not want the public to know how much money he makes and (2) his limited amount of charitable deductions.
Perhaps so, Vince. But (3) Trump might need his investors and bankers to think he makes more than he actually does. And (4) some of Trump’s investors and bankers may be connected to Russian money-laundering schemes that could put Trump in jeopardy violating US sanctions against Russia. Or not.
I agree with 3, in fact, 3 might be the most likely reason, but if 4 were true, the government would already be investigating. After all, the government already has his tax returns. Releasing the return to the public would not enhance the government’s ability to investigate any Russian connection. It is the public that is in the dark regarding his tax filings.
Okay Vince. You win. Thanks for playing in such sportsmanlike manner.
This is not a matter of winning or losing. It is a matter of educating each other. Thanks for your comments.
Diane writes: “And (4) some of Trump’s investors and bankers may be connected to Russian money-laundering schemes”
There she goes again creating history from fiction. She is so messed up by now that nothing she says has much meaning.
LOL! And there may be Russian-Trump collusion in this Grand Canyon-size hole they are digging; all the while the dirt piling up around them is actual evidence of money laundering, rigging an election, etc.
More popcorn please.
Allan said, “There she goes again creating history from fiction. She is so messed up by now that nothing she says has much meaning.”
Just because the meaning of the words “what if” and “may be” are just as lost on Allan as most other words doesn’t mean that I’m creating history from hypothesis. After all, at least one of Trump’s creditors has already been fined for laundering Russian money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/business/big-german-bank-key-to-trumps-finances-faces-new-scrutiny
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/business/big-german-bank-key-to-trumps-finances-faces-new-scrutiny.|
They’ve lost the article. When you get to the NYT search page enter the keywords Deutsche Bank Trump.
Your uses of the words “what if” and “may be” are pure fictional uses without **significant basis**. It’s all in your head and in your dreams, Reality seems to have left your mind long ago.
I went to your NYTimes article and here is what they said:
“there is no indication of a Russian connection to Mr. Trump’s loans or accounts at Deutsche Bank,”
That is a pretty clear statement, but you keep dreaming.
On the other hand regarding Hillary the WP say:
“As one of her party’s most prominent black strategists, Brazile also recounts fiery disagreements with Clinton’s staffers — including a conference call in which she told three senior campaign officials, Charlie Baker, Marlon Marshall and Dennis Cheng, that she was being treated like a slave.”
Clinton rigged the Democratic primaries.
Allan, Deutsche Bank’s involvement with laundering Russian money is, in fact, a reality that has cost Deutsche Bank a great deal of money paid in fines. Likewise, Deutsche Bank’s long-standing business lending to Trump and Kushner are, in fact, a reality that Mueller is currently investigating. The hypothesis at issue is just that–a hypothesis–and nothing more than that.
Why would you worry yourself with such a hypothesis, if you thought it was pure fiction without significant basis proffered by someone who has lost contact with reality and who is so messed up by now that nothing she says has much meaning?
P. S. Have you noticed yet that much the same hypothesis could easily be retooled into a defense of Trump? Or are you still too thick for that, Allan?
Diane says:”Deutsche Bank’s involvement with laundering Russian money is in fact a reality that has cost Deutsche Bank a great deal of money paid in fines.”
Diane’s citation from the NYTimes: “there is no indication of a Russian connection to Mr. Trump’s loans or accounts at Deutsche Bank”
We are talking about Trump, not about your delusions.
I note Diane (late4dinner) is engaging in more and more fantasy as time goes on and then believing it as if it were factually proven. This must be part of the Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Allan, you’re still not paying attention. The hypothesis that you call fantasy, today, may very well become your defense of Trump, tomorrow. Be advised that if, or when, that happens, then it will be symptomatic of your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The sun may not rise tomorrow. One can have a hypothesis about almost anything. The question is whether or not YOU built that hypothesis on fact or the fiction of your dreams. Even the NYTimes article you were desperate for all to see said ““there is no indication of a Russian connection to Mr. Trump’s loans or accounts at Deutsche Bank”.
What you are doing is gambling not assembling a logical argument. Your betting on ‘black’ because ‘red’ came up twice in a row. That is faulty logic since in any one bet no matter how many times ‘red’ came up in a row the statistics remain 50:50. Then you try to justify your logic when no factually true logic of yours exists.
Wrong Allan, I’m betting that the gambit that I’m making here on this thread will become the gambit that you will make in defense of Trump on a thread to be announced at some future date.
Mark your own words, Gambler.
” I’m betting that the gambit that I’m making here”
You are betting just like a true gambler that has no grasp of the logical but thinks he does. Gamble long enough and there are some wins to keep you in the game but inevitably the gambler loses and ends up broke.
Like I said Allan, mark your own words–especially theses:
Gamble long enough and there are some wins to keep you in the game but inevitably the gambler loses and ends up broke.
Diane, gamblers don’t have rational discussions and you are proving that. They distort logic in their own minds to make believe that the next victory is theirs. Such a victory is based upon luck, not intellect and that is why it is called dumb luck.
Allan, consider the following multiple choice question:
Members of the Trump campaign sought to establish contacts with Russians in order to . . .
A) Pursue diplomatic rapport with Russia.
B) Pursue Russian help winning the 2016 election.
C) Pursue business opportunities for The Trump Organization.
I presume that you will choose A), today; but predict that you will argue C), tomorrow.
Your multiple choice question isn’t the appropriate question. The question was whether or not Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. It is a true or false answer and the answer is that neither Trump nor his campaign colluded.
A secondary question would refer to the legality.
When it comes to the Hillary campaign they may very well have colluded with the Russians. We know there was collusion with the Ukrainians. We also know she rigged the Democratic primaries. Additionally, we already know about her pay to play deal with the Russians with regard to the sale of uranium. Her lack of common sense with regards to national security when she used her private email accounts. Her criminality when she refused to turn her emails over to a Congressional Committee and further criminality when she intentionally destroyed her hard discs. That is just the tip of the iceberg with regard to Hillary and now probably to get Hillary to shut up and move out of the way major players in the Democratic party are talking unfavorably about her.
You will eventually get the message and then pretend that none of this stuff happened as you vote for a different Democratic candidate.
Diane, while the criminality of Hillary and the Obama administration stares you directly in the face you ignore it and try to combine puzzle pieces from different boxes to find Trump guilty of some crime, any crime. The pieces don’t fit but you hysterically try to force them together making you look a bit crazy.
Yes. More hearings on Benghazi are needed. Rush swears on a stack of Bibles that another hearing will help him sell advertising spots.
Mark, I’m not jesting. Have you sought psychotherapy? Please look into it. For your own good. Honest. You think and express yourself like a liberal adolescent. I believe you may be better than that.
jim delany – I think you may be setting the bar too high. 🙂
On the contrary. I merely point out the utter ridiculousness of the Trump zombies here by using … wait for it … ridicule. I’m not trying to persuade or convince anyone of anything, because I learned long ago that you can’t argue with crazy, because crazy gonna do crazy. On the bright side, however, if they’re occupied with posting nonsense here, they aren’t out bothering real people.
this is to “doctor” jimmy
Mark M., they secretly love it when you poke at them through their cages. It feeds their insatiable self-pity; which, in turn, they take as vindication for their bullying tactics. They are nothing if not a miserable lot. And they won’t have it any other way.
On the one hand Diane writes to Vince, “Thanks for being civil, Vince.”
…and then civil Ms Diane writes ” they secretly love it when you poke at them through their cages. It feeds their insatiable self-pity; which, in turn, they take as vindication for their bullying tactics. They are nothing if not a miserable lot. And they won’t have it any other way.”
That sort of tells everyone that Diane is full of sh-t and is an instigator.
Allan,
I caught the irony in that as well. Regarding Will America be greater in 2020 than it is today? I give you, Neil Gorsuch. Nuff said.
Neil Gorsuch, a great response, but I still miss Scalia.
Time will tell, but I’d bet Scalia is pleased with his replacement.
Allan said, “On the one hand Diane writes to Vince, ‘Thanks for being civil, Vince.'”…and then civil Ms Diane writes ‘they secretly love it when you poke at them through their cages. It feeds their insatiable self-pity; which, in turn, they take as vindication for their bullying tactics. They are nothing if not a miserable lot. And they won’t have it any other way.’ That sort of tells everyone that Diane is full of sh-t and is an instigator.
Vince was civil. He deserved the thanks I gave him. I am not civil to you; because you’ve done nothing to deserve civility from anyone. On the other hand, thanks for proving my point, you miserably caged animal, you. Now go read Mark M.’s comment about arguing with fools.
“Vince was civil. He deserved the thanks I gave him. I am not civil to you; because you’ve done nothing to deserve civility from anyone.”
Diane, Our first main argument was civil and someone even commented on that. You were dead wrong in what you were saying, but apparently, your son corrected your misperceptions and you apologized and I accepted that apology in a gracious manner.
“Allan, I made a horrible mistake with the number I gave you. I asked my son to check my work. He caught the error and figured out how I made it. The statement ‘sworn officers are safer than we’ is, in fact, egregiously false. My son gave me the correct numbers. Here they are.”
You have made many mistakes since then, but rather than correct them you became frustrated and uncivil. You are rude and so are many of your compatriots that cannot debate in a calm reasoned manner. I respond based on the attitude of the day
Marky Mark Mark – evidently your grade school teachers did not teach you that when you argue with someone smarter than yourself, a counter-argument is appropriate. People who use ad hominems are the losers in debates. You use a lot of ad hominems (you should have looked that term up by now). I don’t think you have gotten the clue yet, you have yet to win an argument.
But Paul, there are dozens of varieties of ad hominem argument; and variety is still the spice of life. Ergo, the argument ad hominem is the spice of life.
Why should Mark M. be put on a bland diet while you and your crew sup gravy to beat the band?
Diane – baby steps for babies.
Yes, Paul, you lea a very spicy life, since “baby steps for babies” is, indeed, an argument ad hominem.
Diane – it is not an ad hominem, but rather sage advice.
Paul, is “sage” advise an intentional pun for the “spice” of life? Or merely an allusion to your “seasoned” experience?
Diane – if it was a pun I would have said pun intended.
Pop quiz, identify the players in the various permutations on a theme: 1) “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” 2) “Don’t argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.” 3) “Answer not a fool to his folly, lest thou also be unto him” (for the thumpers in the crew).
This is to “I recognize myself” paulie
Reboot: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”
Marky Mark Mark – it was brave of you to correct your mistake. However, you should not have made it in the first place. Quotations are easy to cut and paste.
Marky Mark Mark – I have brains, knowledge, and experience. You are out of your depth. Oh, and I don’t do pop quizzes.
The smartest people…are also humble — something that you’re obviously not.
anonymous – the smartest people are NOT the most humble. It is just not a good idea to attack them. They hit back.
When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Matthew 9:36
Have a blessed day.
Mark M. said, “Don’t argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”
Mark M., that is best explanation I have thus far heard for Trump’s “historic victory.”
“What difference does it make?” __Hillary Clinton
No difference to her or you, but a lot of difference to those that lost their loved ones.
BUT…..BUT……Hillary’s e-mails……benghazi…..The Hindenburg….The grassy knoll…..The burning of Rome …Obama’s prison camps…..Texas takeover……….I WANT MY GUNS BACK
Allan said, “Diane, while the criminality of Hillary and the Obama administration stares you directly in the face you ignore it and try to combine puzzle pieces from different boxes to find Trump guilty of some crime, any crime. The pieces don’t fit but you hysterically try to force them together making you look a bit crazy.”
Allan, you’re still catching on all the time. The challenge of the current “puzzle” is for members of the MAGA cult to perceive that Trump’s Russia-troubles will not go away and stop bothering you or Trump until you and your dementor, Trump, stop demanding Hillary’s head on a pike. For crying out loud, Allan, you sound just like Kathy Griffin.
Don’t forget, Allan, the more you harp on Hillary the fewer voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will be able to tell the difference between the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy of professional Clinton haters versus the victim of the greatest witch hunt human history. The main reason Trump won is that the voters dreaded the prospect for endless investigations of Hillary. So don’t forget the looming question either, Allan:
Will America be greater in 2020 than it is today?
” For crying out loud, Allan, you sound just like Kathy Griffin.”
That is a leftist mentality that does things like that. Suddenly the left got a bit embarrassed and through Kathy under the bus. That is OK because there is no principle involved in leftist thinking. Just like the French Revolution the left loses its head and starts lopping every head in sight and then the heads of their own leaders. Craziness and Diane have become synonymous.
Harping on Hillary is not the issue. The issue is the left lost. Hillary lost and the left can’t accept it and will destroy America rather than find a new candidate with better ideas that isn’t a cheat.
“Will America be greater in 2020 than it is today?”
It’s already greater than it was as evidenced by its economy. The harm caused by the Obama administration along with other administrations will have to be dealt with.
Allan said, “Craziness and Diane have become synonymous.”
Allan, Hillary cannot save Trump. If you lock her up, Trump loses. If you don’t lock her up, Trump loses. Either you lock her up, or you don’t lock her up. Either Trump loses, or Trump loses.
BTW, Allan, in case you hadn’t noticed, Trump lost “the witch-hunt defense” this week. Trump’s new defense is that Mueller has proven Papadopoulos to be a liar after Trump hired him [not Fake News]. And that Mueller has shown Manafort and Gates to have been bad guys both before Trump hired them and after Trump fired them [also not Fake News]. Thus the former witch hunter, Muller, is now a stalwart public servant supposedly vindicating Trump with True News of lying liars and bad guys in the Trump campaign.
Are you following that, Allan? Or would you like me to go back over it one more time more slowly till you catch on?
Craziness and Diane are synonymous. All one has to do is look at what you are writing including the NYTimes citation. You are desperate.
Statements such as ” If you lock her up, Trump loses.” are starting to sound good to Diane, but make no sense. How does Trump lose if you lock Clinton up? Why is that even part of your argument? You keep grasping at straws, but they aren’t going to stop you from falling.
I note your claims in your third paragraph.How does any of that prove that Trump himself or his campaign were involved in collusion with the Russians which is the original claim and the whole reason for the investigation? So far there is no linkage, but you keep pointing into thin air at imaginary proofs. Your logic fails as you try and link one fact to another.
Diane, it appears you have lost it.
Let me quote the NYTImes since that was one of your more lucid (though completely wrong and upside down) arguments stating Trumps Russian involvement. “there is no indication of a Russian connection to Mr. Trump’s loans or accounts at Deutsche Bank”
Allan asked, “How does Trump lose if you lock Clinton up?”
Trump was elected in 2016 primarily because the voters dreaded the prospect for endless investigations of HRC. What did the voters get in return for voting for Trump? Endless investigations of HRC plus the Russian investigation of DJ Trump’s campaign.
Thus, if you lock Clinton up, then you can’t intimidate the voters with endless investigations of HRC anymore. And, if you don’t lock Clinton up, your endless attempts at intimidating the voters with still further investigations of HRC will punish the voters for having voted for Trump in 2016.
As general principle of politics, it’s a really bad idea to punish the voters for having voted for Trump. The voters will not take kindly to that in 2020.