Wall Street Journal Reports Manafort Sought Deal With Mueller

ManafortThe Wall Street Journal is reporting that Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort sought a plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller while the jury was deliberating in Virginia.  The report indicates that Manafort understood the likelihood of conviction and also could be willing to follow other Trump insiders with a deal.  Why such a deal broke down is an intriguing question.

It is not clear if Manafort was offering to trade information and cooperation or just looking for an agreement on a guilty plea in exchange for a recommendation for a more lenient sentencing.  The latter would preserve a pardon strategy, but the latter would be a true game potential changer in adding a major cooperating witness.
If Manafort simply wanted a sentencing agreement in exchange for avoiding trial, the prosecutors could have concluded that they are likely to both win and get a high sentence in Washington.  Without cooperation, there would be no advantage in trading away the trial of Mueller’s matinee defendant.  Moreover, a new sentence may be enough to add to the desperation for Manafort in turning on Trump.
Manafort of course could simply plead guilty in Washington to seek leniency from the court.  Such a cut down is not as significant as a deal to drop counts in exchange for a guilty plea.  However, it can put a defendant at the bottom of the sentencing guideline.
The second trial is scheduled to begin on September 17th.

167 thoughts on “Wall Street Journal Reports Manafort Sought Deal With Mueller”

  1. The stock markets went way up yesterday. A bit today. Its all about Trumpster. Deal with Mexico. Maybe one with Canada. Brings some jobs back to the U.S. Economy is good. Tank Dog we don’t have Hillary The 8th.

  2. wait i see more. this is crazy stuff. impeachment not enough, robert reich fabricates a nonexistent remedy of “annulment” not found in the constitution


    Hey Bob: you are advocating a coup in sheep’s clothing. If you want to fabricate a constitutional remedy, I got the counter-remedy, one that’s not so fabricated and it’s in the Second Amendment.


    the only proper way for Trump to be removed from office is to lose in the next election, or impeachment or 25th amendment properly exercised if the facts arose which supported it.

    WARNING to Reich and Phil Mudd and other creative minds thinking alike of illegal coups:

    if a phony 25th amendment coup is attempted or “annulment” fabricated or other false and illegal extra constitutional means adopted to nullify the electoral victory in the 2016 election the 2016 Trump voters, at that point, they will ANNUL the illegal coup attempt by any means necessary.

    ask your self who is more ready for this. the Blue Metropolises on the coasts, or, or the Red states which control all the food production and logistics in the USA and have citizens armed to the teeth. And voted for Trump.

    and Bob reich and Phil Mudd so not be so foolish as to think that all the standing-army Generals are on their side either. That’s a laugh. Maybe some, but, I am rock solid sure every rank of officers down has a significant proportion of Trump voters who will disobey unlawful orders to support a phony coup.

    Boy oh boy some people always want to bite off more than they can chew!

    But, these are the same fools who want a war with Russia. So, maybe they are totally unhinged and crazy. Who knows.

    1. The annulment stuff is nonsense, but Reich does not want a war with Russia. No way.

  3. i just saw this and wanted to post it. phil mudd is a pompous fool who is often calling for Deep State coup. as if his previous attempts were not enough here he was again a month or two ago.


    if there is no Deep State then who the hell is former CIA spook Mudd talking about with the “shadow government?”

    is he implying they can invoke COG plans agains Trump somehow?

    If that happens the devious conniving likes of Phil Mudd may find that Civil war 2 is not an impossibility and if it comes, it can have unpredictable bad outcomes that come back to bite them and everyone else in the backside.

      1. Greenwald did not coin the term.

        this is from wiki.

        “The term “deep state” was defined in 2014 by Mike Lofgren, a former Republican U.S. congressional aide, as “a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.”[5][6] According to the journalist Robert Worth, “The expression deep state had originated in Turkey in the 1990s, where the military colluded with drug traffickers and hit men to wage a dirty war against Kurdish insurgents”.[7]

        In The Concealment of the State, Professor Jason Royce Lindsey argues that even without a conspiratorial agenda, the term deep state is useful for understanding aspects of the national security establishment in developed countries, with emphasis on the United States. Lindsey writes that the deep state draws power from the national security and intelligence communities, a realm where secrecy is a source of power.[8] Alfred W. McCoy states that the increase in the power of the U.S. intelligence community since the September 11 attacks “has built a fourth branch of the U.S. government” that is “in many ways autonomous from the executive, and increasingly so.”[9]

        In the journal Foreign Affairs, UCLA Law professor Jon D. Michaels discusses Trump and the deep state, and argues that the concept’s relevance is quite limited in the United States. He states that it is a more useful perspective in the study of developing governments such as Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey, “where shadowy elites in the military and government ministries have been known to countermand or simply defy democratic directives.”[10]”

        I think it’s plenty applicable as there are all these calls for removal of Trump by means other than impeachment which sound a lot like Coup especially coming from CIA creep Phil Mudd.

        Be careful what you wish for. Democratic party electoral victories in the future may be undone by future Deep States in case you don’t have much imagination.

        1. Sort of but not exactly. There’s a detailed profile of Greenwald in this week’s New Yorker. Along the way we are informed, “Shortly before Trump’s Inauguration, Greenwald wrote an article for the Intercept titled ‘The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer.’ The Drudge Report promoted the article, and it went viral. This had the effect of offering the phrase ‘deep state’ which, until then, had been a murmur among political scientists and fringe bloggers—as a gift to Trump defenders. Roger Stone referred to the article in an interview with Alex Jones, on Infowars; Greenwald spoke of ‘deep-state overlords’ on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’ According to data from the gdelt Project, the phrase ‘deep state’ then took off—first on Fox, then on other networks, and then in the tweets of the President and his family.”

          This is for wiki is my Bible, Kurtz.

          1. wiki is a useful starting place for research in spite of its political correctness. you can go to the notes and disprove them if you can. I think the excerpt I quoted is fair and accurate.

            i am a fan of roger stone. i have no shame in that.
            just because he said it doesnt mean it’s false.

            the notion of a Deep State is actually a sophisticated political concept and people just don’t like how it has caught on among the hoi polloi. the arrogance of voters to suspect that the CIA dabbles in elections, including our own!


            btw it wasnt that long ago that leftists were the ones “peddling conspiracy theories” about the deep state nullifying democratic election results in America. Have you ever heard of a a lawyer named Mark Lane.

            Well since a lot of Democrats are now emplanted into the Deep State they want to kill the notion off lest it affect their chances. So they send bots into cyberspace and underwrite self appointed fact checkers like the snopes guy to debunk things, that is to say, miseducate the electorate in the desired manner.


          It’s no coincidence that ‘Deep State” is resisting Donald Trump. Trump, as we all know, never held public office. His most recent employment was in the field of Reality Television.

          Because Trump has no concept of how government is structured, and no respect for norms, he keeps constantly encountering resistance from career officials.

          The same dynamics apply to corporate America. If a CEO’s career was running grocery chains, he or she would be hard-pressed to take the reins of an auto company. Executives who made their careers in in autos would resist a grocery CEO. Naturally they would want one of their ‘own’ in that job.

          The same applies to government.

      2. You might want to read about this thing called the “military-industrial-congressional complex.” It’s an arcane concept put forward by someone named Eisenhower. He was a major conspiracy theorist I believe. A real cook.

  4. So, is the report a concoction or is Mueller’s office leaking again?

    1. Mueller has not and does not leak. This was probably floated by Manafort’s counsel. They’ve leaked before.





    Axios has obtained a spreadsheet that’s circulated through Republican circles on and off Capitol Hill — including at least one leadership office — that meticulously previews the investigations Democrats will likely launch if they flip the House.

    President Trump’s tax returns
    Trump family businesses — and whether they comply with the Constitution’s emoluments
    Trump’s dealings with Russia, including the president’s preparation for his meeting with Vladimir Putin
    The payment to Stephanie Clifford — a.k.a. Stormy Daniels
    James Comey’s firing
    Trump’s firing of U.S. attorneys
    Trump’s proposed transgender ban for the military
    Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s business dealings
    White House staff’s personal email use
    Cabinet secretary travel, office expenses, and other misused perks
    Discussion of classified information at Mar-a-Lago
    Jared Kushner’s ethics law compliance
    Dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors
    The travel ban
    Family separation policy
    Hurricane response in Puerto Rico
    Election security and hacking attempts
    White House security clearances

    The spreadsheet catalogs more than 100 formal requests from House Democrats this Congress, spanning nearly every committee.

    The spreadsheet includes requests for administration officials to be grilled by committee staff, requests for hearings to obtain sworn testimony, efforts to seize communications about controversial policies and personnel decisions, and subpoena threats.

    These demands would turn the Trump White House into a 24/7 legal defense operation.

    The bottom line: Thanks to their control of Congress, Republicans have blocked most of the Democrats’ investigative requests. But if the House flips, the GOP loses its power to stymie. Lawyers close to the White House tell me the Trump administration is nowhere near prepared for the investigatory onslaught that awaits them, and they consider it among the greatest threats to his presidency.

    Edited from: “1 Big Thing… Scoop: Republicans Study Their Coming Hell”

    AXIOS, 8/26/18


      Reads like proper congressional oversight. Which a Republican-led House has completely abandoned.

      1. I can see how you think that. I suspect it’s the GOP’s backup plan to motivate the base if running around yelling impeachment doesn’t work.

    2. If this comes to pass, it will be interesting to see if Trump the somewhat rational deal maker emerges to try and pass some sensible infrastructure legislation and some ACA patches.

      1. trump would deliver on infrastructure that is a no brainer and he campaigned on it and it’s his kind of thing.

        but they dont want him to be seen as doing good things and would probably obstruct even this simple thing we can all agree is necessary looking at the sad state of bridges and airports and roads.

        a friend from china who is generally impressed with the US, says: “Why are your roads so bad?”

        1. Well, he has control of both houses. He’s had multiple infrastructure weeks. What’s the holdup? ADHD?


      Which Republicans have never exercised.

    4. Disgusting. Lawfare is now the rule huh? So much for democracy. Really sickening. Thanks for letting people know how craven and power mad Dems really are. as if not clear enough already


      1. Dude, the spreadsheet was cooked up by the GOP, not the Dems. Pay attention.
        As for sueing, what about the GOP. We lose in court (Brown, Roe, Obergefell) so we stack the SCOTUS with the likes of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. So much for respect for precedent and the rule of law.

        1. you are right to name together in your list Brown and Roe and Obergefell. You might have added Griswold to the list too.

          Those were all tyrannical article III judge overturnings of legit, valid, constitutional state laws, with very long democratic support and unquestioned constitutional legitimacy, by an improperly activist Supreme Court of unelected lifetime tenure judges playing national federal morality legislators.

          So much indeed for rule of law. What the left could not pass via democracy, they legislated from the bench.

          And dont worry those guys won’t overturn your precious abortion rights. No more than they would Griswold or Brown.

          Gosh what paranoia.Sad

          1. Right, the right never legislates or goes beyond the rule of law. Let’s see: Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, et al.

            1. dont drag Gore into this. Gore was better than Hillary on many levels. And he had better claims than Hillary in respect of the election…. but went into retirement after he lost his case like a gentleman. That’s what she should do. Go into retirement and get treatment for whatever’s ailing her.

              Gore got short shrift from the Clintons all along. They eclipsed him and America was worse off because of it.

              oh and yeah maybe you didnt notice Obama didnt try very hard for Hillary either. People hate her and I fully include a ton of Democrats. If you lickspittles are still out there worshiping her, get a grip and move on.

              you know she might have won if her husband had campaigned for her more, but she was too arrogant to allow it. He was ten times more popular than her.

              1. My life is too short to encourage, support or become involved in the cottage industry of speculation, theories and critiques of why Hillary lost. Past caring about what she did wrong.
                I just want to see what Mueller comes up with.

          2. Kurtz, let me get this straight: you’re an outspoken advocate for women sex workers. Yet you want to see Roe overturned..?? Sound’s bizarre.

  6. Trump-Russia conspiracy story dying heading into holiday weekend, as evidenced by weak faux lefty hysteria following this latest “news”. R.I.P.

    1. propaganda and propaganda. what can one believe out of the MI 5 and 6, not much, i suspect. all in the interests of Her Majesty’s Empire.

  7. Manafort’s best negotiating position was before the first jury came in. Now, he just has to hope for a pardon. Meanwhile. Mueller has to decide whether to retry Manafort on the 10 hung counts.

  8. Before I clicked on the blog, I knew it would be yet another mug shot of Manafort. I’m beginning to believe JT’s friends and family need to stage an intervention for his obsession with this man.

    1. Dear Foxtrot: Amen! Plenty of other Manafort images for JT to pull from intergalactic internet.

    2. I can tolerate this mugshot as long as those involved in the 2016 election conspiracy against President Trump get their own mugshots displayed.

  9. “It is not clear if Manafort was offering to trade information and cooperation or just looking for an agreement on a guilty plea in exchange for a recommendation for a more lenient sentencing.” If “It is not clear..” then this is weak story about a man who may or may not have reached out to persecutor at time of desperation. Jon Turley Hype Machine and WSJ all part of the overly hyped media environment we are living in. Hype = eyeballs = ads = dollars.


    Donald Trump was under the impression that Manafort was totally loyal and not inclined to ‘flip’. But if Trump hears that Manafort was discussing a deal, he’s going to have a tantrum.

    I’ll be watching Trump’s tweets for the moment he learns. His reaction might be something like this: “Just found out Paul Manafort wants to flip. He can forget a pardon. Die in jail, you rat!”

    1. Right now, Trumpy Bear is obsessed with how he can take the media spotlight away from all of the praise being heaped on Senator McCain due to his passing. That’s what this morning’s nothingburger “trade deal” announcement was all about.

      1. Death does not change the fact that McCain was a warmongering globalist.

      2. such a nothingburger the stocks hit an all time high. yeah, you are funny. nothing burger, lolz. out of touch~!

    2. i bet you watch tweeter all the time. what a disgusting medium. i avoid it like the plague.

  11. Manafort is in no position to ask or tell Mueller anything and his lawyers know it. Playing for time. Manafort still has state crimes to answer for.

    1. Ship has already sailed on credibility of Manafort as rat for Muler. He is now a convicted felon.

      1. Hey Tab, would rat Manafort get his credibility back if Trump pardons him?

        1. Dear Late4HotYoga: If Manafort indeed acted as rat then he would not get a pardon. Where you been girl – have you not watched the Godfather Saga, Sopranos?

  12. The problem with the FBI’s insurance policy is it was never expected to be needed with a Clinton victory. It certainly was supposed to pay off quickly. By dragging this investigation out, actual evidence of a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election is getting to the point that it can’t be ignored. And it’s not people in the Trump circle. It’s the other guys.

    An investigation by SaraACarter.com reveals that the documents and information Lovinger stumbled on and other documents obtained by this news site, raise troubling questions about Halper, who was believed to have worked with the CIA and part of the matrix of players in the bureau’s ‘CrossFire Hurricane’ investigation into Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Halper, who assisted the FBI in the Russia investigation, appears to also have significant ties to the Russian government, as well as sources connected directly to President Vladimir Putin.

      1. Mueller.

        Don’t mess with the Marine. You won’t live long enough to regret it.

        1. He may have been a teufel hunden back in Vietnam, but now he’s just Hillary’s bitch.

  13. Manafort is going to spend some time with Bernie. Apparently Bernie settled in well and even had a fight or two. He will show Manafort the ropes. His options are to ‘flip’ on that lying, disgusting, sack of cr*p in the Oval Office and try for as little time as possible or to tough out the rest of the trial(s) and hope the Liar in Chief pardons him after the 2020 elections. The questions are: can a President pardon someone who is ‘so’ convicted on so many counts-by the time the trials are over it will be well over a dozen, is every crime pardonable, can another part of the government or judiciary block a Presidential pardon, will it become politically damaging to the Republicans for Trump to pardon Manafort, etc? Tough call Paul. Better call Saul. I say, flip and do your country a service, go down with some integrity, spend your years in jail designing a bigly comeback.

    1. But, if Manafort is pardoned, he no longer faces criminal jeopardy, so he can’t take the Fifth when he gets subpoenaed by Mueller.

      1. By that point the special counsel will have been shut down by the President using his lawful powers as the Chief Executive.

    2. yes you are the snitch type Isaac son of Bacon.

      club fed is easy time, generally orderly and safe and rare is anybody getting shivved in a minsec camp

      manafort will do harder time if he flips and yes snitches usually have to do some time. famous snitches can’t lie about their jacket either

  14. I look forward to the 2nd trial where we get to hear about the oligarchs and Russian connections. The evidence list includes emails from Russians, lets see what they were chatting about. How did the Republican Platform get changed to be more favorable to Russia? What was the benefit to Manafort to go work somewhere for free while he was in debt for tens of millions?

    The first trial was a revelation of just who “the best people” Trump hire really are. The second will get into the Russia connections, unless of course, Manafort becomes a rat and we don’t hear about it until the Mueller report.

    1. If the second round of trials is going to reveal stuff about the Russians and their oligarchs, then Trump might be involved. This might place Manafort in a negotiating position with Trump where Manafort pleads guilty to all the stuff to avoid the exposure(s) of a trial and still has the goods on Trump to force a pardon, after Manafort’s wrists are slapped by spending a couple years in the pokey, with Bernie Trump pardons him. The public will get their few ounces of flesh, Manafort will emerge an honorable man-in the eyes of that honorable man Trump, and then it’s off to the book, circuit, lecture races and bigly bucks.

      1. There isn’t likely a good scenario for Manafort. He is still subject to state charges which can’t be pardoned away and even worse the Russians. He likely fears them more than anyone, knowing firsthand what they’re capable of. He may be doing the honorable thing and literally saving his family?

        1. state charges? for what. zzzz. complicated financial trials are federal specialty. especially weak ones motivated by political animus.

            1. possible and yes beyond the pardon power, but, unlikely.
              feds are better at putting on fraud trials. they’re not exactly easy in complicated financial matters. however i would grant that New York is probably more capable of it than other states.

          1. You don’t seem to be even suggesting actual innocence? Manafort was prosecuted because he thrust himself into the spotlight. If you’re going to be a criminal, stay in the shadows. The same is what will bring Trump down, thinking nobody would notice.

            1. truth in what you say but consider if that is good or not. and it cuts many different ways against many kinds of people not just manafort

              now consider whether you Democrats would be happier with Ted Cruz who was stealing DJT’s delegates which is why he brought Manafort on board. Cruz is signficantly far to the right of DJT. Not that you guys care much about policy.

              1. I have no use for Ted Cruz and by November we may have seen the last of him for at least a while. As much as I dislike him, he would inflict far less harm on the country than Trump.

                1. please for example: Cruz would really be on the warpath against abortion. Whereas, do you seriously think Trump cares about criminalizing abortion? Come on. He’s not that kind of guy if you know what I mean

                  people don’t get that Trump is a moderate, he is just pissing certain people off too much with immigration on which the far left is out of touch with the basic viewpoints of the population.

                    1. i hadnt heard of that but yeah you get my point

                      DC is full of abortionists and the Republican honchos are probably just as much on the payor side as the Dems.

                      Do not take seriously the Republican commitment to criminalizing abortion. it’s fake. just a play to enlist Catholics mostly.

                      abortion is going to stay legal. however undemocratic it was when they imposed Roe, now a majority is in favor of abortion rights. the issue is a nonstarter. women get to kill their unborn babies in the womb and fathers have no say. get used to it if you havent already.

                      i do not support Roe v Wade I am just saying that issue is a nonsequitor and mostly on both sides just drumming up donations for PACs and stuff liek that.

                  1. Trump doesn’t really have many positions he actually believes in. That would require doing the work to be informed. He has taken on any position the evangelicals that support him told him to. That includes criminalizing abortion, (he said the women must be punished). He abandoned his previous position on guns to become a pawn of the NRA. Look at his evolving statements after Parkland before the NRA told him what to say. He says he wants to get rid of Roe v. Wade. He wants more private prisons and to bring back mass incarceration. Then he’s separating children at the border, some permanently. Give me an example of his moderation and I submit I can counter that with his actions.

                    1. here’s your examples

                      1. abandoning previous republican (and centrist democrat) commitment to “Free trade” in favor of “fair trade,” a position long favored by trade unions

                      2. detente policy with russia, a foreign policy aim shared by disfavored democrats who are not beneficiaries of defense industry campaign contributions in abundance like hillary was

                      ok? there ya go., there’s more but you can admit those first or no discussion

                    2. He has been relatively consistent on trade although he doesn’t understand it well enough to have an actual policy. He just announced, “possibly the best trade deal of all time” which is barely different from NAFTA as far as anyone can tell, except for not including Canada. We’ll see what it actually turns out to be when he submits details to Congress, if he does.
                      Detente with Russia? I thought he has been the toughest ever on Russia? Oh, that’s just talk.

                    3. on the topic of guns you are correct his inclinations are those of a gun grabbing new yorker but he has corrected that erroneous impulse probably when he figured out what I have been talking about today which is the red state gun nuts fully support him and voted for him and he will need them if the Deep State likes of Phil Mudd are successful in launching an attempted extraconstitutional coup against him in the wake of a failed impeachment drive.

                      yes he is firmly in favor of NRA positions now you can bet on that

                      one regrettable thing that I do not much like about Trump is the coziness with Wall Street., but that was probably a sincerely held affinity he had long before the election in light of his business experience with lending and so forth. Sincere but sincerely too close I think. i am not sure if that position is moderate or perhaps excessively capitalistic. I Think the latter.

                      but as I stated, his fair trade policy and policy of deescalation with Russia are laudable moderate positions

                    4. Enigma “oh that’s just talk actually he is tough on Russia” you are right that Trump does not own his obvious wise and humanitarian strategy of detente with Russia. mostly because he is being pursued by the hell hounds of the Deep State because of it and the issue is perhaps too subtle to give sufficient explanation on tweeter. but you are correct he dissembles on this. i find that a disappointment and believe he should “own it” as they say.

                      there are things that happened with Obama where the usual suspects were trying to drag into war with Syria, some but not all intel people and mass media corporate war mongers, here is one example there are others


                      I think DJT is too bellicose towards Iran, but that is due to his support from Israelis, which is significant, but another topic that cuts across party lines

                    5. you say he doesnt understand trade policy,. i do not know how you are supposed to be qualified to know that., did you test him?

                      i suspect that a billionaire who has maintained and grown a fortune over decades and intensively in the building buildings sector, knows a thing or two about steel. he has bought a lot of it I suspect.

                      maybe he knows so much more about it than the usual lawyer type presidents that he actually has a qualified opinion and can’t be dissuaded by a bunch of wonks!

                      dont hold your breath for other “fair trade” advocates like Robert Reich to praise him for this, he thinks Trump should be the subject of “annulment” which is his phony word for a coup

                      the complete lack of commitment to the American worker by the Democratic party is the real story of the election and you guys fail to grasp that. workers who even support immigration restriction because their jobs are threatened. trust me, my job as a lawyer isnt threatened by immigrants, it’s unskilled workers who are. and they voted more for Trump than any Republican in a long long time

                      Hillary was getting the big money from silicon valley that wants to change immigration law and let in tons more h1bs and liberalize the hell out of immigration law to import a lot of Asian programmers, so the unskilled workers that used to be the core of Democratic support be damned!

                    6. “. i do not know how you are supposed to be qualified to know that., did you test him?”
                      Worse yet, I listened to him, especially the part about how easy Trade Wars are to win. Tell that to the soybean farmers.

                    7. He got his steel from where the mob told him to. Musch of his money came from questionable deals with Russian oligarchs that we’ll be hearing much more about, along with money laundering and fraud. Be careful when you hold up a crook as a role model, he’s being exposed a bit more each day.

                    8. i would have voted for Trump just because feminists hated him. Them and a lot of other smarmy self appointed bishops of the new religion of political correctness. I hate them and all their preachy nonsense, their shrill man hating invective, so they made the choice easy for me.

                      Hearing the Bible thumping Ted Cruz wag his finger at trump made that an easy choice too, his annoying high pitched voice just bothers the hell out of me, and little Marco! huh, wow, all the “you’re a bad guy” crap just backfires with me.

                      I mean I didnt hold it against Bill Clinton that he was a cad or even allegedly a rapist, He did some good things, in spite of whatever his personal faults were, many presidents are cads. This has never bothered me in the slightest bit. I am unlike many purittannical Americans in that regard. Feminism has picked up where the Puritans left off.

                      Actually there are various things I dislike about Trump but to see the frustration of those who have tormented us for so long is just delicious, a beautiful experience for which I extend to DJT sincerest appreciation and I say, HAIL TO THE CHIEF!

                      If it was Bernie versus the Donald I seriously would have given Bernie a thought. he gave some great speeches and should be taken seriously. A lot of republicans call him a socialist as if America hasnt mostly adopted a lot of the main tenets of socialism in the past century anyways. So If it was Bernie versus other Republicans would have been harder yet. I might have just sat it out, Bernie has his own flaws. I wont spend a minute on them, only to say, bernie’s worst flaw was letting Hillary screw him over so badly. So that aspect of Bernie is what I dislike the most and it makes me doubt his sincerity. But, Ended up, I was kind of glad Hillary won because it would have been a harder choice. Of course, I prolly would have voted DJT anyhow.But I might have sat that one out.

                      I used to think the whole thing was fixed. When I voted for DJT I had no expectation he would win. I thought for sure it would have been rigged against him. I’ts a genuine testament not to the weakness of American elections but to their continued legitimacy and viability. Really an amazing thing.

                    9. mob contracts for NYC construction matters did not involve where to buy steel as far as i know. produce the evidence if you can. i think that level of a buy is above the average mafia contract.

                      as for the Trump he is known for his deals. if anybody can strike a good deal it’s him. Trade wars have winners and losers but Trump has shifted them in favor of the American industrial worker of that there is no doubt

                      at the end of the day Chinese will still buy tofu and chicken feets from america. they have their own population that they are screwing over all the time there and if they take cheap tofu and chicken feet away they may just lose the “mandate of heaven’ so that’s a bigger problem for them than us by far. same thing is true of US Treasuries. they can buy less but they will still buy.

                    10. Actually, Trump got away from using steel and used ready-made concrete supplied by the mob. I hope you take the time to read the entire article but here’s an excerpt.
                      Anthony ‘Fat Tony’ Salerno, boss of the Genovese Crime Family, is photographed leaving the U.S. federal courthouse in Manhattan, New York, on February 28, 1985 after his arraignment for two counts of racketeering. | Getty
                      Anthony ‘Fat Tony’ Salerno, boss of the Genovese Crime Family, is photographed leaving the U.S. federal courthouse in Manhattan, New York, on February 28, 1985 after his arraignment for two counts of racketeering. | Getty

                      There was something a little peculiar about the construction of Trump Tower, and subsequent Trump projects in New York. Most skyscrapers are steel girder construction, and that was especially true in the 1980s, says John Cross of the American Iron & Steel Institute. Some use pre-cast concrete. Trump chose a costlier and in many ways riskier method: ready-mix concrete. Ready-mix has some advantages: it can speed up construction, and doesn’t require costly fireproofing. But it must be poured quickly or it will harden in the delivery truck drums, ruining them as well as creating costly problems with the building itself. That leaves developers vulnerable to the unions: the worksite gate is union controlled, so even a brief labor slowdown can turn into an expensive disaster.

                      Salerno, Castellano and other organized crime figures controlled the ready-mix business in New York, and everyone in construction at the time knew it. So did government investigators trying to break up the mob, urged on by major developers such as the LeFrak and Resnick families. Trump ended up not only using ready-mix concrete, but also paying what a federal indictment of Salerno later concluded were inflated prices for it – repeatedly – to S & A Concrete, a firm Salerno and Castellano owned through fronts, and possibly to other mob-controlled firms. As Barrett noted, by choosing to build with ready-mix concrete rather than other materials, Trump put himself “at the mercy of a legion of concrete racketeers.”

                      Salerno and Castellano and other mob families controlled both the concrete business and the unions involved in delivering and pouring it. The risks this created became clear from testimony later by Irving Fischer, the general contractor who built Trump Tower. Fischer said concrete union “goons” once stormed his offices, holding a knife to throat of his switchboard operator to drive home the seriousness of their demands, which included no-show jobs during construction of Trump Tower.

                      But with Cohn as his lawyer, Trump apparently had no reason to personally fear Salerno or Castellano—at least, not once he agreed to pay inflated concrete prices. What Trump appeared to receive in return was union peace. That meant the project would never face costly construction or delivery delays.

                      The indictment on which Salerno was convicted in 1988 and sent to prison, where he died, listed the nearly $8 million contract for concrete at Trump Plaza, an East Side high-rise apartment building, as one of the acts establishing that S &A was part of a racketeering enterprise. (While the concrete business was central to the case, the trial also proved extortion, narcotics, rigged union elections and murders by the Genovese and Gambino crime families in what Michael Chertoff, the chief prosecutor, called “the largest and most vicious criminal business in the history of the United States.”)

                      FBI agents subpoenaed Trump in 1980 to ask about his dealing with John Cody, a Teamsters official described by law enforcement as a very close associate of the Gambino crime family. The FBI believed that Cody previously had obtained free apartments from other developers. FBI agents suspected that Cody, who controlled the flow of concrete trucks, might get a free Trump Tower apartment. Trump denied it. But a female friend of Cody’s, a woman with no job who attributed her lavish lifestyle to the kindness of friends, bought three Trump Tower apartments right beneath the triplex where Donald lived with his wife Ivana. Cody stayed there on occasion and invested $500,000 in the units. Trump, Barrett reported, helped the woman get a $3 million mortgage without filling out a loan application or showing financials.

                    11. as for crooks they are all crooks, DJT is less of a crook than the rest, in the ways that matter to us here in flyover, that’s why so many in the Swamp are rallying against him.

                      At the level of national leadership you will never get a saint. Saint Louis is long dead. There hasn’t been one since.

                      Unless you count Czar Nicholas, who is a saint to many Orthodox, but he lost very badly so he’s nothing to elevate as an example, for those who live in the here and now.

                    12. I am not apologizing for organized crime in general. But if some Italians in New York had control of the supply of redimix, and the buildings passed code, and donald paid a premium, none of that is illegal or of any special opprobrium.

                      I am not going to run down the Teamsters one bit.

                      Speaking of the alleged Cosa Nostra, I also leave it to the feds to make up detailed “conspiracy” charges against various people they don’t like. If you want to find the biggest conspiracy theorist around, it”s no secret, there they are in court all the time. and half the time one of the conspirators is a government provocateur or payee. Talk about liars!

                      now Miller who is one of them has supposedly has DJT in his sights which is really odd considering DJT is the Capo de Tutti Capi of the feds. Maybe Miller finds himself thinking he can do what John Gotti did but in the end whatever his results he is just an old fart with a spotty career defined by some notorious failures who is on his last gig. At least Miller’s trying to go out with a bang, I’ll say that much for him. Old fart.

                2. no he has not cleaned up the Swamp. But what anyone wants from that promise may vary. You may have wanted him to put in a bunch of angels. I didn’t. I wanted him to put in people who worked for flyover not the DC bureaucracy. That’s my version of cleaning it up.

                  The Cabinet, leaves a lot to be desired, but I am not one who could speak on that with any expertise. I see some I think are ok like Coats and Chao and some that I really dislike such as Nikki Haley. Really don’t like her, just the stupid whiny voice is a bad face for America. I think Kelly is ok. Tough job he has.

                  Pruitt, bad, but– worse of all, Gina Haspel, torture supervisor, and destroyer of evidence.


                  Pompeo: jury’s out on him. Cia guy but CIA and State are pretty incestuous anyhow. Maybe a good thing especially consider the den of vipers that is CIA. If he delivers on ending NK war then he gets a thumbs up. that’s not looking so good now but who knows where it will end up. Maybe up to China in the end after all no matter what.

        1. just wondering if there’s never an impeachment will you droolers be back with apologies?

          1. If there is never an Impeachment, it will be because Republicans continue on their current path of covering their eyes and ears and refusing to consider the evidence of Trump crimes. Impeachment being a process and not the result, if the question is never brought for consideration by partisan politicians, there will be no apology.
            On the other hand, if the Mueller investigation comes to completion and finds no crimes, if SDNY finishes it’s investigations and finds no crimes, if the State of NY, the FEC, the IRS and civil courts all find Trump innocent, I’ll apologize away.

              1. I wonder what it would take to get his supporters to acknowledge they were wrong? They have a unique ability to discount any new information by either discrediting the source (i.e. New York Times) calling it “fake news” or changing the subject, blaming alternately the Deep State, Hillary or/and Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

                1. wrong about what?

                  proof manafort is guilty of financial crimes unrelated to the campaign? clearly there is enough proof for a jury

                  proof that DJT was in unlawful conspiracy with “Russians”? none

                    1. we’ll see. it’s a preposterous hypothesis but yeah maybe given another year or so Miller will finally come up with something convincing.

                      and btw,. there’s all kinds of things that are apparently lawful which candidates can do in respect of elections and interacting with foreigners

                      for example di you notice hillary paid an englishman for opposition research, which he supposedly gleaned from Russian sources? Was that illegal?

                      so i am wondering how it is such a hypothetical violation if a russian gave opposition research about Hillary. oh boy the scary russians. only Englishmen foreigners are good, all others bad!

                      at the end of the day information is information and voters have a right to it.

                      that’s part of what deeply pisses you hillary acolytes off. the information came out about how she screwed bernie via wikileaks and you will never forgive the voters who abandoned her because of this nor Trump for benefitting.

                      just sore losers that’s all this comes down to

                      but hey, thanks for preparing the ground for Republicans to lawfare the next Democratic president when the shoe is on the other foot.

                      oh yeah i forgot. NSA monitors all electronic communications. ALL. They would have the dirt if it is there. I think a year of this crap is long enough to wait for something compelling to emerge. Miller was appointed in May 17.

                  1. “Wrong about what?”
                    That’s part of the problem is that some of you can’t acknowledge wrongdoing no matter how blatant. The crimes Manafort has been convicted of so far are unrelated to the campaign (although you’ve already forgotten him offering up a Secretary of the Army position in trade for a personal loan). I’ve attempted to get some of you to acknowledge that Trump lies, which he does daily. The best I’ve gotten in return is attacks on the Clintons. You can’t help but be aware of the “unusual” meetings between the Trump campaign (Manafort, Kushner, Trump Jr, Papadopoulos, Page, Sessions, Prince) all of whom failed to disclose them and lied about them later. There may never be proof of DJT’s personal involvement though it appears he placed calls to his son surrounding the Trump Tower meeting. Everything you can’t deny you make excuses for.
                    Back to Manafort, come September 24th when oral arguments begin in the 2nd trial. You can hear all about Russia, some having to do with the campaign.

                    1. i just asked you to define exactly what. if you are saying that meetings were suspect that is nothing for me to admit or deny. you may suspect whatever you like. just as I suspect christopher steele and hillary.

                      the question is what proof of illegal conspiracy between Trump and Russians. the allegations are against Manafort. it sounds like you think they will posit Trump as an undicted co conspirator, that’s the rumor., YAWN

                      you know what an unindicted co conspirator is? somebody the government can’t prove a case against but conveniently excuses them from the case so that they can hammer somebody else on whom they may actually have some evidence to pass muster.

                      a bunch of phony crap from federal prosecutors, i wont waste my time on listening unless somebody pays me. that’s always just their side of the story.

                      this whole thing has been a great education for law and order Republicans to wake up and see how phony some of our prosecutions can be.

                      for example, ask yourself how all these black guys are in prison so long for being drug dealers when they didnt even hardly have a handful of crack. well, just more presumed guilty of intent to distribute at a certain weight, that’s how, unless you can prove innocence, the jury will believe what the big government prosecutors say kind of stuff. easy to pin on a poor guy who actually is caught with the goods.

                      harder to pin on someone who can defend himself like Trump.

                    2. Or… an unindicted co-conspirator can be the President of the United States when an internal policy says the President shouldn’t be indicted and another says not to name an individual not charged. Equating being an unindicted co-conspirator with innocence didn’t work out too well for Nixon.
                      BTW, Trump’s defense of himself constantly evolves as soon as the previous lie will no longer do.

                    3. its not merely an “internal policy” that a sitting president cant be indicted, it is the logic of the President being the Chief executive. He inherently can’t be indicted. hello. grasp the logic my good fellow!

                      Grasp that logic and also understand he can fire Miller whenever he likes fully within his constitutional prerogatives even if it might be a bad idea.

                    4. saying just that he is chief executive and top cop who literally can’t be indicted by his subordinates.

                      this is not really a controversial issue.

                2. Many on here including myself have stated if evidence exists to indict President Trump that warrants impeachment, then he should be impeached. What we haven’t been hypocritical about is investigating all the entities involved in the 2016 election and holding everyone accountable, where evidence exists, to the rule of law. That is not what the anti-Trumpers have done. While they lick their collective chops over the most minor of process crimes related to everything Trump, they cannot or will not do the same for the other side of the ledger.

                  1. Curiously, there seems to be a consensus that a sitting POTUS can’t be indicted. However, Agnew was on the verge of being indicted by a US Attorney for Maryland when he decided to resign.

                3. “I wonder what it would take to get his supporters to acknowledge they were wrong?’

                  Setting aside the abundance of actual evidence pointing to the political persecution of Trump and his associates by the FBI and Mueller, I would say that any evidence that Trump is a traitor would suffice. That was the accusation after all…that he is a traitor that ought to be hung from the nearest tree. So, please show me ANY evidence of treason. Make your best case.

                    1. bienvenido camarada, tenemos muchos buenos adversarios para debatir aquí hoy

                  1. Failing to implement the sanctions authorized by Congress against Russia. Negotiating against the policy of the current government regarding existing sanctions while a private citizen against the Logan Act. Conspiring with a foreign government to influence a Presidential election. Standing with the Russian President against the findings of all the intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in our elections. The Helsinki press conference alone was enough. The evidence of many of those crimes should be presented in a concise format assuming his supporters can’t stop the completion and submission of the Mueller support. Then there’s the stream of communication between a Trump private server in Trump Tower and one in Alpha Bank in Russia, give me one plausible explanation for that? Kushner trying to set up a private backchannel to Russia in the Russian Embassy. That’s off the top of my head.

                    1. Enigma, you have been mislead about helsinki

                      this is not a partisan issue it is a matter of

                      Война и мир, translit. Voyná i mir


                      The hysterical media/establishment/Deep State reaction to President Trump’s comments in Helsinki is based on a lie. U.S. intelligence chiefs, current and former, fire back at Trump—a sample offering from the NPR—quotes Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats as saying the U.S. intelligence community has been “clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.” Former CIA director John Brennan went many steps further: “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous.” The Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Richard Burr of North Carolina said his committee has no reason to doubt the (alleged) intelligence community’s “conclusion that President Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at the 2016 elections.” Und so weiter, and so on, ad nauseam . . .

                      Let us clarify this key issue with the help of Jack Matlock, a career U.S. diplomat who “served on the front lines of American diplomacy during the Cold War” and was U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union when the edifice collapsed. Did the U.S. “intelligence community,” asks he, really “judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election? Most commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read . . . refers to ‘Russian interference’ as a fact.” In fact, Matlock points out—on the basis of freely available, unclassified evidence—that the “intelligence community” has done no such thing, ever. It has not been tasked to make a judgment, and its key members did not even participate in preparing the report which is routinely cited by Trump’s critics as proof of “Russian interference.” Unprecedentedly long quotes are in order because of the importance of this issue in making a judgment on what President Trump said on July 16.

                      Matlock starts by pointing out that after 35 years of government service with a top secret and later “codeword” clearance, ambassadorial rank, and previous experience as Special Assistant to the President for National Security, he had developed an astute “feel” for the strengths and weaknesses of the various U.S. intelligence agencies’ reports. It was with that background that he read the January 6, 2017 report of three intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA:

                      This report is labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment,” but in fact it is not that. A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions. Individual agencies did not hesitate to “take a footnote” or explain their position if they disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to be that of the “intelligence community” if any relevant agency was omitted.

                      As Matlock points out, the “report” states that it represents the findings of just three intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI, and NSA. Even that is misleading, apparently, in that it implies that there was a consensus of relevant analysts in all these three agencies. In fact, Matlock stresses, the report was written by a group of analysts from those three agencies pre-selected by their directors—overseen by James Clapper, Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence (DNI):

                      Clapper told the Senate in testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by “two dozen or so analysts—hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.” If you can hand-pick the analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have understood what Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of his views. Why would they endanger their careers by not delivering? What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.

                      The DNI had under Clapper a National Intelligence Council, Matlock continues, whose officers could call any intelligence agency with relevant expertise to draft community assessment: “It was created by Congress after 9/11 specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection revealed by 9/11.” Yet Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC, which was strange since its duty is “to act as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities”:

                      During my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would include reports from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) of the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included unless the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United States. NSA might have provided some of the intelligence used by the other agencies but normally did not express an opinion regarding the substance of reports . . . What did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of INR or DIA! The exclusion of DIA might be understandable since its mandate deals primarily with military forces, except that the report attributes some of the Russian activity to the GRU, Russian military intelligence. DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, is the U.S. intelligence organ most expert on the GRU. Did it concur with this attribution? The report doesn’t say.

                      The omission of IN, Matlock continues, is more glaring since a report on foreign political activity could not have been that of the U.S. intelligence community without its participation. When it comes to assessments of foreign intentions and foreign political activity, he says, the State Department’s intelligence service is by far the most knowledgeable and competent:

                      This is where due diligence comes in. The first question responsible journalists and politicians should have asked is “Why is INR not represented? Does it have a different opinion? If so, what is that opinion? Most likely the official answer would have been that this is “classified information.” But why should it be classified? If some agency heads come to a conclusion and choose (or are directed) to announce it publicly, doesn’t the public deserve to know that one of the key agencies has a different opinion? The second question should have been directed at the CIA, NSA, and FBI: did all their analysts agree with these conclusions or were they divided in their conclusions? What was the reason behind hand-picking analysts and departing from the customary practice of enlisting analysts already in place and already responsible for following the issues involved?

                      The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion, according to Matlock, but was not allowed to express it. In the end, the January 2017 report was not one of the “intelligence community,” but rather of just three intelligence agencies, “two of which have no responsibility or necessarily any competence to judge foreign intentions.” The FBI exists to enforce federal law, NSA to intercept the communications of others and to protect ours. “It is not staffed to assess the content of what is intercepted; that task is assumed by others, particularly the CIA, the DIA (if it is military) or the State Department’s INR (if it is political)”:

                      The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts’ views. The heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except in the fields of cryptography and communications security. One striking thing about the press coverage and Congressional discussion of the January report, and of subsequent statements by CIA, FBI, and NSA heads is that questions were never posed regarding the position of the State Department’s INR, or whether the analysts in the agencies cited were in total agreement with the conclusions.

                      Let’s put these questions aside for the moment and look at the report itself. On the first page of text, the following statement leapt to my attention: “We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.”

                      Matlock righty asks how we can judge whether activity “interfered” with an election without assessing its impact: if the activity had no impact on the outcome, it could not be properly termed “interference.” This disclaimer has not prevented dozens of journalists and politicians from citing the report as proof that “Russia interfered” in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

                      As for particulars, the report is full of assertion, innuendo, and description of “capabilities” but largely devoid of any evidence to substantiate its assertions. This is “explained” by claiming that much of the evidence is classified and cannot be disclosed without revealing sources and- methods. The assertions are made with “high confidence” or occasionally, “moderate confidence.” Having read many intelligence reports I can tell you that if there is irrefutable evidence of something it will be stated as a fact. The use of the term “high confidence” is what most normal people would call “our best guess.” “Moderate confidence” means “some of our analysts think this might be true.” Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself “Guccifer 2.0” is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee’s computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published.

                      As it happens, retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the “Guccifer 2.0” data on the web and have concluded that its data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally downloaded. “Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion that ‘Guccifer 2.0’ is a total fabrication”:

                      “Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.” In other words, what was disclosed was the truth! So, Russians are accused of “degrading our democracy” by revealing that the DNC was trying to fix the nomination of a particular candidate rather than allowing the primaries and state caucuses to run their course. I had always thought that transparency is consistent with democratic values. Apparently those who think that the truth can degrade democracy have a rather bizarre—to put it mildly—concept of democracy.

                      Most people, hearing that it is a “fact” that “Russia” interfered in our election must think that Russian government agents hacked into vote counting machines and switched votes to favor a particular candidate. This, indeed, would be scary, and would justify the most painful sanctions. But this is the one thing that the “intelligence” report of January 6, 2017, states did not happen. Here is what it said: “DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.” This is an important statement by an agency that is empowered to assess the impact of foreign activity on the United States. Why was it not consulted regarding other aspects of the study? Or—was it in fact consulted and refused to endorse the findings? Another obvious question any responsible journalist or competent politician should have asked.

                      Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically motivated, report as proof of “Russian interference” in the U.S. election without even the pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with common dangers is vital to both countries. This is only part of the story of how, without good reason, U.S.-Russian relations have become dangerously confrontational . . .

                      Dixit. On this essential aspect of the Helsinki press conference, likely to be debated in history books and scholarly articles for years to come, I defer to the judgment of a man better informed than myself.

            1. If there is never an Impeachment, it will be because Republicans continue on their current path of covering their eyes and ears and refusing to consider the evidence of Trump crimes.

              Apparently you don’t agree with yourself; all in one post.

              You make this statement blaming the Republicans because of ignoring evidence, and then conclude by identifying all the agencies still looking for crimes.

              Way to cover all bases. LOL!

              1. Olly – These are two completely different processes. Impeachment is, unfortunately, a purely political process and given the House which has to initiate proceedings has declared its investigation over, subpoenaing nobody, refusing to call witnesses and Devin Nunes conflict of interest, if the Republicans keep the House it may never happen.
                All the other things are proceeding although Trump is threatening to derail whatever he can. My personal prediction is when Donald Jr and/or Jared Kushner get indicted, all hell will break loose, even before we get to him.
                I won’t apologize if partisan politics rules the day. If Trump is actually innocent of the litany of charges against him, something I consider extremely unlikely. I’ll be first in line to apologize.

                1. politics is not per se bad. at the end of the day the life of the city is what politics is; the life of the state., it is what it is. impeachment is purely political but that is not necessarily a fault. it’s a complicated thing

                  the courts are not purely independent either, not even the vaunted article iii lifetime tenure judgeship. they too are influenced by culture and ideas which feed into politics. certainly our courts are more objective and independent than say the PRC; but not entirely so, and probably that is not necessarily even a proper ideal. .

                  social things in the end come down, quite a bit, to resource competition between groups. there is no getting around that in the end, even in a society with material abundance.

          2. Mr. Kurtz,…
            Don’t press them for an apology if there is no impeachment.
            The shock of a stunning upset election win by Trump still hasn’t worn off for many who comment here.
            If Trump is not impeached, that additional disappointment will be the final nudge that will push some completely over the edge.
            Asking for an apology could be the catalyst that would accelerate process.

            1. Try to accept this, Nash. We’ve adapted. The shock is over. It’s highly unlikely that Trump will be impeached. That would be shocking.

              1. Hollywood,…
                I didn’t mean to suggest that all of the anti-Trump people who comment here are victims of TDS.
                It may only be a very small majority who are still unhinged because of the 2016 election results.

                  1. In its most severe form, TDS is known as the “Natacha/ DeNiro Disorder”.
                    When NDD and other forms of TDS are considered, I don’t think it’s overdiagnosed.

                    1. i feel sad for Deniro that he is so screwy in life. He is really one of my favorite actors. I dont say a great actor because he kind of plays the same guy in every movie. Not even close to pacino in the craft. .but makes characters i like. in life he is just screwy. God bless him anyways

        2. Please impeach the President. After the failure to convict in the Senate you will realize the damage you have done to yourselves but it will be too late. Such a move is what we actually want you to do and it will be good for the country when it’s over. It will guarantee Trump’s victory in 2020 even though we will likely be headed into a recession at the same time. All of this is dependent on the Dems winning the House which is likely but not guaranteed.

          1. I’m all for waiting for the submission of the Mueller Report to see what the evidence is. If there is clear proof of guilt, the question will be whether the Senate will put President and Party ahead of Country and everything you previously said about being a traitor is meaningless.

            1. Thanks for admitting that you don’t have any evidence that Trump is a traitor. It’s quite the hole you guys on the left have dug for yourselves with these wild accusations and actions. Good luck getting out. Keep digging.

              Denial is not a river in Egypt.

              1. I have the evidence of guilty pleadings from Flynn, Papadoupolos, some Russian son of an oligarch lawyer whose name I won’t look up, Cohen, Gates, 8 convictions for Manafort with more to come. I know enough of the congressional testimony of Trump Jr to know he perjured himself. Had Trump Sr been under oath he’d have done the same. There exists plenty of evidence, much of which has been reported on, it matters not that I don’t have it in my possession. Convince yourself Mueller doesn’t have it? He certainly had the goods on Manafort.

                1. Flynn’s meeting with Kislyak was not unlawful. Apparently he foolishly met with the feds and they ensnared him into a lie. That is called a process crime and proves nothing about DJT. Sorry

                  Papadop, low level guy, doing his own thing. Nothing on DJT. Weak

                  Cohen: the payoff to Stormy was not illegal. You can pay people not to talk. Happens every day in garden variety settlements. He used his own money and even if the money were campaign finance funds he can net out against his huge personal contributions. So that is a zero on the underlying thing.

                  Trump Jr, dont know what you’re talking about, who cares if they met a Russian who said something bad about Hillary. Not illegal to meet foreigners with opinions. Really, first amendment applies to foreigners here too. That is not in itself anything illegal. Not illegal for hillary to try and get dirt from an Englishmen who talked to Russians either. But, in testimony, Did Trump Jr misinform too? maybe they can charge him like Flynn with process crime but nothing on DJT

                  Nada nada nada not unless Miller’s been hiding it. and likely a smoking gun would have leaked. I think you guys just have a prosecutor with deep pockets and political backers directing him in a vendetta, justifying his own existence and fat budgets at the end of the day

                  1. Listen to you, “they ensnared him into a lie.” Mueller’s not hiding anything, he’s doing what he’s supposed to do and not leaking like a sieve like the White House. They said he had nothing on Manafort until they did. They listed 1,500 pieces of evidence for the next trial including his emails from Russians, can’t wait to read those. And although he never intended to actually be interviewed by Mueller, Trump couldn’t possibly get through one without perjuring himself because his need to lie is pathological. Oh, that’s right, you guys never acknowledge that Trump actually lies. #Sad

                    1. ha hell no he wont be interviewed you got that right no way
                      listen, i never said he wasnt a liar. i just say he’s my kind of liar.
                      theyre all liars! he’s a sincere liar though.

                    2. Kurtz, can you explain what you mean about Trump being a sincere liar either by a narrative or examples. Isn’t a sincere liar an oxymoron?

                    3. politicians lie all the time. the contexts and subjects matter a lot. that’s true of all of us really,.

                      a lot of what donald does that you call lying i would call oversimplification. which he does to communicate in mass media effectively.

                      does an actor lie when he pretends?

                      does a lawyer lie when he in good faith repeats the position of a client which the lawyer can’t verify and is ethically allowed to take at face value?

                      does a prosecutor lie when he makes a case to a jury and only tells his side of it?

                      does a cop lie when he goes undercover?

                      does an abused spouse lie to protect from the wrath of the abuser?

                      do Christians lie when they repeat unverifiable things that are not physically possible? or muslims or jews, likewise?

                      lying is very contextual as you can see. i am not the judge of who is a liar. i prefer to look at policy and actions, with politicians

                      look at hillary’s policies and actions as secretary of state and I deplore them, John kerry tenure was better by far. nobody even mentions that.

                      trump has a lot of sincere positions on things that matter to me, so, whether or not he told the truth about paying off a bimbo is about as consequential to me as bill clinton misleading on sex things or JFK.

                      I heard JFK used to troll for hookers in DC he was that bad of a sex addict. Maybe so or maybe not. but, so what? Were his policies and actions in office good or bad for America? focus on that. Get over the sex nonsense. it’s trivial.

                  2. The payoffs to Stormy and McDougal were illegal campaign finance violations given the manner in which they were hidden, money was not declared as coming to the campaign, and, of course, the proximity in time to the election date while the Grab ’em by the pussy tape had just come out. You may not like the technicalites involved, but a case is being made and Cohen has pled to it, Pecker has rolled as has his assistant. Potentially a 5 year felony for DJT IIRC.

                    1. he has plead to it which means he will elocute whateve the prosecutor tells him to. lame.

                      dont’ think that is good enough to ensnare a president. maybe a hoodlum rolling over on a mafia confederate but not the CIC. sorry no dice.

                      not a sufficient crime or misdemeanor for impeachment thats for sure.

                      and if it’s a civil FEC violation could be proved thats chump change too. just a dog that wont hunt but we will watch Miller run him around a lot sniffing and barking.

                    2. Kurtz, yes, you have your point about FARA, but while it’s not a huge deal for Trump, it’s another brick on the load.

                2. you’re a smart guy, enigma, i hope they are paying you for this. you have a good way of making a point without invective or going over the top. makes it fun to chat!

                  you know a good song by a hip hop artist, young dolph, “get paid”! look it up, great song.

                  for me i just like to argue for fun, when i’m off the clock.

        1. no, Yanukovich was aligned with Russia, but under them and not in a position to influence the Republican platform and after he was ejected damn sure not in any position to do much besides hide out and shut up which is what Russia made him do.

          and manafort was doing all he could do to secure the Trump delegates, which was what he was hired to do. you guys are imagining things on this particular.

          actually the change in the Republican platform was a signal moment of an objective improvement in policy towards detente in the current era of dangerous new-cold-war adversarial positioning against Russia by war mongers.

          its worth it to mention this because their nukes are pointed at all our heads and accidents can happen let alone wars can happen too. the US is belligerent and expansionist in the postwar era and there have been many moments of extreme danger of nuclear conflict that should not be discounted due to forgetfullness or the heat of partisan politics

          1. Nice spin. Not buying it, but there are ambiguities about what happened. Although not apparently part of the DC trial, FARA violations are, so somethings may be revealed in that trial when it occurs. As for Manafort’s denials, I think we can ignore pretty much any Manafort denial on a matter that goes to his ciminality.

              1. Kurtz, my point on the FARA allegations is it’s in this area that some information relative to the platform might be revealed.

                1. well i will be really surprised, i just dont see that as something manafort was trying to do, he was there to lock up delegates, that is no secret.

                  the platform is mostly symbolic, and this was a symbolic change that was positive. this seems like a stretch,. why would anybody bother to try and go to big trouble in order to do that as a result of trying to influence policy, the payoff is too uncertain. i just think that was a good idea a lot of people had that resonated with voters who have fatigue with war.

                  bagging a guy like manafort on tax evasion or bank fraud is not a stretch. if you drove drunk down fifth avenue it would be hard not to hit somebody who wasnt potentially guilty of bank fraud or tax evasion.

        1. good question enigma.

          among high profile Republicans, there are only two who have consistently advocated for peace with Russia over decades. Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.

          however there are many who have worked for detente. A wise policy that was championed by the likes of Kissinger and Nixon and many who followed.

          Today, there is a reason nobody wants to be seen as soft on Russia.
          Because Russia is the bete noire of the “military industrial complex” (MIC) ie the Deep State which requires enormous budgetary expenditures and a bogeyman to keep them going.

          So, republicans are driving a thin line between their war mongering supporters (Dems have a lot of them too, their candiate was Hillary) and the more peaceably inclined, who are usually called “isolationists” if they are Republicans. I dont know what they call Bernie, the peace candidate on the Dem side, maybe a commie or what I dont know. But he alike Trump was the peace inclined candidate, disfavored by the MIC

          that’s how i see it but what do I know, very litle

  15. Simple. Pardon Plus Book Deal. Lost his licenses but will be back on his feet financially plus lecture circuit. Pardon based on using fruit of poisoned tree etc; to convict. Serves minimal jail time on the rest of it. No brainer. Worst comes to worst and the left doesn’t and isn’t going to have the votes to convict would be President Pence with Presidential Advisor Donald Trump.

    I question there will be a Democrat Party after 2024 or a GOP

    More than likely some variation of

    Socialist Party whose electees must still take a binding oath of office to the Constitution or themselve be liable for impeachment/conviction just as they are now.

    Constitutional Republic Party (those in office )

    Constitutional Centrist Coalition.

    It’s a brave new word and the sun is shining

  16. Mull Err needs to move forward. Both Trump and Hillary can be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Comments are closed.