Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
Return to: Politics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 19772--------------------------------------------------
Act III
By: Kerry Date: August 22, 2018, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Holland suggested that a new phase has begun in the Trump
administration. It looks like it, doesn't it? It looks like a
third act in some melodrama.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-white-house-deny-wrongdoing-after…
The White House pushed back forcefully on Wednesday against
suggestions that a plea deal struck by President Donald Trump's
former lawyer Michael Cohen implicated Trump in a crime.
"As the president has said, we've stated many times, he did
nothing wrong. There are no charges against him," press
secretary Sarah Sanders said at a White House briefing. "Just
because Michael Cohen made a plea deal doesn't mean that that
implicates the president on anything."
Cohen on Tuesday pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges of tax
evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations. He told a
federal court in Manhattan that Trump directed him to arrange
payments ahead of the 2016 presidential election to silence two
women who said they had affairs with Trump.
This is really crazy for her to say. If what Cohen did was a
crime, and Trump asked him to do it, then Trump would guilty
too. Some of the charges don't seem to have anything to do with
Trump; but the hush money did, and we've heard the tape proving
Trump knew about one payment in advance.
As for no charges being made against Trump? He would be an
"unindicted conspirator." Mueller may be thinking it best not
to charge Trump formally with anything but to turn over his
evidence to Congress. Let them decide if Trump should be
impeached.
It looks bad to me, very bad; and Republicans have to be
worried.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/can-mueller-indict-the-trump-organizati…
Former federal prosecutors tell Newsweek while it�s plausible
the Trump Organization or campaign could be indicted based on
their alleged involvement in Cohen�s crimes, it�s unlikely the
president himself would be indicted. The Department of Justice
has a policy not to indict a sitting U.S. president because it
would �undermine the capacity of the executive branch.� When it
comes to impeachment, that would be entirely left up to
Congress.
However, if he were not sitting in the Oval Office, former U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Barbara McQuade
said Trump would absolutely be indicted �because it appears
based on Cohen�s in-court statement, he was directed by
President Trump to engage in this.� McQuade said the specific
charge would likely be the solicitation of a crime.
Both McQuade and Kenyan Brown, a former U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of Alabama, told Newsweek that based on
Cohen�s admission of guilt and allegations in court documents
from prosecutors, it seems like the Trump Organization may have
engaged in a criminal activity and could be indicted. Harry
Litman, former U.S. attorney for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, believed it�s more likely individuals within the
Trump Organization would be indicted for their alleged
involvement rather than the corporation as a whole.
#Post#: 19773--------------------------------------------------
Re: Act III
By: HOLLAND Date: August 22, 2018, 8:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1354.msg19772#msg19772
date=1534974214]
Holland suggested that a new phase has begun in the Trump
administration. It looks like it, doesn't it? It looks like a
third act in some melodrama.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-white-house-deny-wrongdoing-after…
The White House pushed back forcefully on Wednesday against
suggestions that a plea deal struck by President Donald Trump's
former lawyer Michael Cohen implicated Trump in a crime.
"As the president has said, we've stated many times, he did
nothing wrong. There are no charges against him," press
secretary Sarah Sanders said at a White House briefing. "Just
because Michael Cohen made a plea deal doesn't mean that that
implicates the president on anything."
Cohen on Tuesday pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges of tax
evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations. He told a
federal court in Manhattan that Trump directed him to arrange
payments ahead of the 2016 presidential election to silence two
women who said they had affairs with Trump.
This is really crazy for her to say. If what Cohen did was a
crime, and Trump asked him to do it, then Trump would guilty
too. Some of the charges don't seem to have anything to do with
Trump; but the hush money did, and we've heard the tape proving
Trump knew about one payment in advance.
As for no charges being made against Trump? He would be an
"unindicted conspirator." Mueller may be thinking it best not
to charge Trump formally with anything but to turn over his
evidence to Congress. Let them decide if Trump should be
impeached.
It looks bad to me, very bad; and Republicans have to be
worried. [/quote]
There is, indeed, a quantum difference how matters now stand
than what they did before, Kerry. Now that Trump is an
"unindicted conspirator", he is going to be under a much more
extreme level of stress. He now knows he is in immediate legal
danger and can vividly understand his children could be facing
legal charges as well if they've been involved in illegal
activities. This will be very hard for a personality that has
had done probably much illegal activity in the past and has
never suffered the consequences for it.
I think for Paul Manifort, that he was caught and being made to
pay for his crimes was a great surprise for him. For these men,
there has been little accounting for their misdeeds. Manifort
had that look in his face for months that seemed to indicate
that the legal proceedings were no big deal. He had escaped
punishment and trouble for many years. It was, at this time
around, that things were different.
[quote]
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/can-mueller-indict-the-trump-organizati…
Former federal prosecutors tell Newsweek while it�s plausible
the Trump Organization or campaign could be indicted based on
their alleged involvement in Cohen�s crimes, it�s unlikely the
president himself would be indicted. The Department of Justice
has a policy not to indict a sitting U.S. president because it
would �undermine the capacity of the executive branch.� When it
comes to impeachment, that would be entirely left up to
Congress.[/quote]
Trump has to worry that the Trump campaign could be indicted for
criminal activity. This would not help Trump as he goes
"barnstorming" through the country on behalf of the candidates
of his choice. It would, invariably, lead many people to draw
the unwelcome conclusion that the candidates in question have
little concern for crime and for honest elections.
[quote]However, if he were not sitting in the Oval Office,
former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan
Barbara McQuade said Trump would absolutely be indicted �because
it appears based on Cohen�s in-court statement, he was directed
by President Trump to engage in this.� McQuade said the specific
charge would likely be the solicitation of a crime.
Both McQuade and Kenyan Brown, a former U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of Alabama, told Newsweek that based on
Cohen�s admission of guilt and allegations in court documents
from prosecutors, it seems like the Trump Organization may have
engaged in a criminal activity and could be indicted. Harry
Litman, former U.S. attorney for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, believed it�s more likely individuals within the
Trump Organization would be indicted for their alleged
involvement rather than the corporation as a whole.
[/quote]
I suspect that both the organization and individuals could be
indicted. This will end quite effectively Trump's "fake news"
charge against the investigation. At that point Trump will be
facing the decision of either shutting the investigation down by
firing individuals in the Department of Justice or, perhaps,
seeking the route to pardon others and himself. I suspect the
latter will be difficult to do.
If one accepts a pardon, that person can be called to testify
what they've been pardoned for, and failure to answer under
those circumstances would, in itself, be a new crime that could
lead to new charges. Trump could, eventually, be hauled into
court to explain his criminality despite all his embarrassment,
and would have to live in shame because of his own naked
revelation of his crimes.
#Post#: 19774--------------------------------------------------
Re: Act III
By: Kerry Date: August 22, 2018, 11:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=HOLLAND link=topic=1354.msg19773#msg19773
date=1534988596]
There is, indeed, a quantum difference how matters now stand
than what they did before, Kerry. Now that Trump is an
"unindicted conspirator", he is going to be under a much more
extreme level of stress. He now knows he is in immediate legal
danger and can vividly understand his children could be facing
legal charges as well if they've been involved in illegal
activities. This will be very hard for a personality that has
had done probably much illegal activity in the past and has
never suffered the consequences for it. [/quote]It is almost
comical that the legal documents don't use the term, but
everyone knows that's what meant. His family could be at risk
as you say; and and you know even if he's not indicted since
he's the sitting President, charges could filed if and when he
leaves office.
[quote]I think for Paul Manifort, that he was caught and being
made to pay for his crimes was a great surprise for him. For
these men, there has been little accounting for their misdeeds.
Manifort had that look in his face for months that seemed to
indicate that the legal proceedings were no big deal. He had
escaped punishment and trouble for many years. It was, at this
time around, that things were different. [/quote]I suppose the
gravity of his situation may have sunk in. The question now for
me is if there are more materials which interest Mueller, things
that involved Trump as well as Manafort, things not mentioned
yet. There could be some evidence against Trump but not enough
to get a conviction or even to justify a trial. However if
Manafort flipped and was willing to testify against Trump, his
testimony might be enough. The crimes Manafort was tried for
already took place before he worked for the Trump campaign.
Trump supporters have been quick to point that out -- and
correct too -- but I wonder if there are matters that involved
Trump that Mueller would like Manafort to testify about.
[quote]Trump has to worry that the Trump campaign could be
indicted for criminal activity. [/quote]
It seems probable to me.
There could be other things too. Manafort allegedly offered to
brief Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska about campaign doings.
Now if that happened, we have to ask if Trump knew about it!
Or was Manafort working for free for Trump, duping Trump, in
order to get inside information that he could pass on
Deripaska? That could be since Manafort was heavily in debt
to Deripaska. It's also possible that Trump knew about the
offer to brief Deripaska and encouraged it. So far, that's an
unknown. Something highly secretive might have under
discussion, something neither Trump nor the Russians would
discuss but to which Manafort has a key.
[quote]This would not help Trump as he goes "barnstorming"
through the country on behalf of the candidates of his choice.
It would, invariably, lead many people to draw the unwelcome
conclusion that the candidates in question have little concern
for crime and for honest elections.[/quote]I am wondering how
many candidates will find it advisable to have him come campaign
for him? Time will tell us that.
[quote]I suspect that both the organization and individuals
could be indicted. This will end quite effectively Trump's
"fake news" charge against the investigation. At that point
Trump will be facing the decision of either shutting the
investigation down by firing individuals in the Department of
Justice or, perhaps, seeking the route to pardon others and
himself. I suspect the latter will be difficult to do.
[/quote]He needs to tread cautiously. Anything that smacks of
obstruction of justice would turn more Republicans against him.
Some things he could do might solve a few of his problems but
create bigger ones like impeachment.
[quote]If one accepts a pardon, that person can be called to
testify what they've been pardoned for, and failure to answer
under those circumstances would, in itself, be a new crime that
could lead to new charges. Trump could, eventually, be hauled
into court to explain his criminality despite all his
embarrassment, and would have to live in shame because of his
own naked revelation of his crimes.[/quote]Jail for for
contempt of court is a possibility too if you refuse to testify.
He needs to think twice about pardoning some of these people
or himself.
https://www.mediaite.com/donald-trump/trump-is-will-consider-pardoning-paul-man…
Fox News� Ainsley Earhardt said on Hannity Wednesday night that
President Donald Trump will consider pardoning Paul Manafort.
Sean Hannity � interviewing Earhardt after her interview with
the president that is set to air tomorrow morning on Fox &
Friends � asked if Trump was more angry at his former personal
lawyer Michael Cohen than Paul Manafort.
Earhardt replied: �He mentioned pardoning Manafort.�
�He did mention pardoning Manafort?� Hannity asked.
�He did,� she replied. �He said he considered that. He feels I
think � I think he feels bad for Manafort. They were friends, he
didn�t work for him for very long. Worked for him for basically
100 days. The president didn�t know about all of this tax stuff.
He wouldn�t know about that.�
He's the President. If he wants to pardon Manafort, he can do
it. It might open a can of worms. I'd be interested in
knowing why Deripaska stopped trying to collect the $19 million
Manafort and Rick Gates owed him three months before he joined
the Trump campaign -- after suing him for it in the Cayman
Islands, and why if he owed Deripaska money would he offer to
work for Trump for free? Where did that money from the failed
television venture go anyway? Deripaska asked for a while and
wasn't told. I don't know he was ever told.
#Post#: 19779--------------------------------------------------
Re: Act III
By: HOLLAND Date: August 23, 2018, 9:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1354.msg19774#msg19774
date=1534997979]
It is almost comical that the legal documents don't use the
term, but everyone knows that's what meant. His family could be
at risk as you say; and and you know even if he's not indicted
since he's the sitting President, charges could filed if and
when he leaves office. [/quote]
Now that the Manhattan DA and the New York State Attorney
General is getting into the act concerning the Trump
Organization tax transactions, legal procedures that are Federal
pardon- proof, I should think, Kerry, that Trump is going into
the hurt locker big time. It's going to affect his sleep very
detrimentally.
Trump is going to have to take prescription sedatives and he
will not be able to rest properly. I suspect that prescription
amphetamines wil" need to be prescribed to give him energy and
so Trump will be doing the "downers" and "uppers".
[quote]I suppose the gravity of his situation may have sunk
in.[/quote]
Yes, in spades . . . ;D
[quote]The question now for me is if there are more materials
which interest Mueller, things that involved Trump as well as
Manafort, things not mentioned yet. There could be some
evidence against Trump but not enough to get a conviction or
even to justify a trial. However if Manafort flipped and was
willing to testify against Trump, his testimony might be
enough. The crimes Manafort was tried for already took place
before he worked for the Trump campaign. Trump supporters have
been quick to point that out -- and correct too -- but I wonder
if there are matters that involved Trump that Mueller would like
Manafort to testify about.[/quote]
I hear that the charges to be brought up in D.C. involve
Manifort's connections with the Russians. I have the suspicion
that Trump is very worried about how the testimony may go in
these upcoming trials. I think that the testimony will almost
certainly lead to implicating Trump's children in various
crimes.
[quote]It seems probable to me.
There could be other things too. Manafort allegedly offered to
brief Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska about campaign doings.
Now if that happened, we have to ask if Trump knew about it!
Or was Manafort working for free for Trump, duping Trump, in
order to get inside information that he could pass on
Deripaska? That could be since Manafort was heavily in debt
to Deripaska. It's also possible that Trump knew about the
offer to brief Deripaska and encouraged it. So far, that's an
unknown. Something highly secretive might have under
discussion, something neither Trump nor the Russians would
discuss but to which Manafort has a key.[/quote]
I think you're right. I think that the secretive actions may go
back to the Trump Organization. Perhaps Mueller has decided
that if Trump is politically out of reach, the Trump
Organization is not and that the Federal legal actions will be
primarily against it and including Trump's family. Eventually,
state actions against Trump's many companies may become issues
as well as more and more alleged criminal activity becomes
known.
[quote]I am wondering how many candidates will find it advisable
to have him come campaign for him? Time will tell us
that.[/quote]
And that time may be running out . . . ;D
[quote]He needs to tread cautiously. Anything that smacks of
obstruction of justice would turn more Republicans against him.
Some things he could do might solve a few of his problems but
create bigger ones like impeachment. [/quote]
I've heard it said on MSNBC that the Republican Senate will
never consider trying Trump for impeachment provided that he
doesn't fire Robert Mueller or shut down the Russian
Investigation. I think that the Republican senators realize
that that would not be politically sustainable.
[quote]Jail for for contempt of court is a possibility too if
you refuse to testify. He needs to think twice about
pardoning some of these people or himself.[/quote]
I agree. Trump's acts to pardon people now will be politically
perilous. He is a reckless personality, though.
[quote]
https://www.mediaite.com/donald-trump/trump-is-will-consider-pardoning-paul-man…
Fox News� Ainsley Earhardt said on Hannity Wednesday night that
President Donald Trump will consider pardoning Paul Manafort.
Sean Hannity � interviewing Earhardt after her interview with
the president that is set to air tomorrow morning on Fox &
Friends � asked if Trump was more angry at his former personal
lawyer Michael Cohen than Paul Manafort.
Earhardt replied: �He mentioned pardoning Manafort.�
�He did mention pardoning Manafort?� Hannity asked.
�He did,� she replied. �He said he considered that. He feels I
think � I think he feels bad for Manafort. They were friends, he
didn�t work for him for very long. Worked for him for basically
100 days. The president didn�t know about all of this tax stuff.
He wouldn�t know about that.�
He's the President. If he wants to pardon Manafort, he can do
it. It might open a can of worms. I'd be interested in
knowing why Deripaska stopped trying to collect the $19 million
Manafort and Rick Gates owed him three months before he joined
the Trump campaign -- after suing him for it in the Cayman
Islands, and why if he owed Deripaska money would he offer to
work for Trump for free? Where did that money from the failed
television venture go anyway? Deripaska asked for a while and
wasn't told. I don't know he was ever told.
[/quote]
Deripaska, I understand, has fled to Moscow and will not be
facing the charges that Manifort will be facing at his next
trial. I suppose that enough will be raised to create even more
civil and criminal actions in the state and Federal courts for
both Manifort, Cohen, and the Trumps.
#Post#: 19785--------------------------------------------------
Re: Act III
By: Kerry Date: August 24, 2018, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=HOLLAND link=topic=1354.msg19779#msg19779
date=1535079362]
Now that the Manhattan DA and the New York State Attorney
General is getting into the act concerning the Trump
Organization tax transactions, legal procedures that are Federal
pardon- proof, I should think, Kerry, that Trump is going into
the hurt locker big time. It's going to affect his sleep very
detrimentally.[/quote]
One story I read suggested two members of his campaign team
would be getting more scrutiny. Another story mentioned
Junior.
[quote]Trump is going to have to take prescription sedatives and
he will not be able to rest properly. I suspect that
prescription amphetamines wil" need to be prescribed to give him
energy and so Trump will be doing the "downers" and
"uppers".[/quote]Now that you mentioned that, I wonder if maybe
he's already on both downers and uppers. That might explain
some of his mood swings. Up the dosages?
[quote]I hear that the charges to be brought up in D.C. involve
Manifort's connections with the Russians. I have the suspicion
that Trump is very worried about how the testimony may go in
these upcoming trials. I think that the testimony will almost
certainly lead to implicating Trump's children in various
crimes.[/quote]Yes, I read the same thing.
[quote]I think you're right. I think that the secretive actions
may go back to the Trump Organization. Perhaps Mueller has
decided that if Trump is politically out of reach, the Trump
Organization is not and that the Federal legal actions will be
primarily against it and including Trump's family. Eventually,
state actions against Trump's many companies may become issues
as well as more and more alleged criminal activity becomes
known.
And that time may be running out . . . ;D[/quote]And more
breaking news -- and I didn't see this coming -- slapping
myself since it was a logical step that someone at the National
Enquirer might give testimony.
National Enquirer hid damaging Trump stories in a safe
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ap-national-enquirer-hid-damaging-trump…
/>
The National Enquirer kept a safe containing documents on hush
money payments and other damaging stories it killed as part of
its cozy relationship with Donald Trump leading up to the 2016
presidential election, people familiar with the arrangement told
The Associated Press.
The detail came as several media outlets reported on Thursday
that federal prosecutors had granted immunity to National
Enquirer chief David Pecker, potentially laying bare his efforts
to protect his longtime friend Trump.
Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty this week to
campaign finance violations alleging he, Trump and the tabloid
were involved in buying the silence of a porn actress and a
Playboy model who alleged affairs with Trump.
Five people familiar with the National Enquirer's parent
company, American Media Inc., who spoke to the AP on the
condition of anonymity because they signed non-disclosure
agreements, said the safe was a great source of power for
Pecker, the company's CEO.
The Trump records were stored alongside similar documents
pertaining to other celebrities' catch-and-kill deals, in which
exclusive rights to people's stories were bought with no
intention of publishing to keep them out of the news. By keeping
celebrities' embarrassing secrets, the company was able to
ingratiate itself with them and ask for favors in return.
Again, it never occurred to me that people at the National
Enquirer could hold power over Trump by killing that story. I
had gone with the trite narrative that Pecker was friends with
Trump and killed the story and got some money out of it too.
How naive of me not to think of that. There are so many players
with so many possible angles, I can forgive myself for not
having thought of this angle; but now it's out, the logic is
pretty obvious.
[quote]I've heard it said on MSNBC that the Republican Senate
will never consider trying Trump for impeachment provided that
he doesn't fire Robert Mueller or shut down the Russian
Investigation. I think that the Republican senators realize
that that would not be politically sustainable.[/quote]Add now
to that . . . "or fire Jeff Sessions." It was pretty bad when
Trump admitted the reason he appointed Sessions was that he
thought he was "loyal."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-president-who-demands-loyalty-finds-i…
"He took the job and then he said I'm going to recuse myself. I
said, 'What kind of a man is this?' And by the way, he was on
the campaign. You know the only reason I gave him the job
because I felt loyalty, he was an original supporter," Trump
said.
Sessions responded that he and his department "will not be
improperly influenced by political considerations," adding to
tension over his decision to recuse himself. People close to the
president said they were not aware of any immediate plans to
dismiss Sessions, at least before the midterm elections.
Trump admitted -- openly -- that he was expecting Sessions to
obstruct justice if need be -- not to do his job as he thought
he should but to protect Trump. Not that I like Jeff Sessions
-- I dislike him intensely and disagree with him on many things
-- but I never thought his character was so low and corrupt that
he'd pervert justice to please Donald Trump. I also never
thought he was stupid enough that he'd put himself at risk
trying to pull Trump's chestnuts out of the fire.
What an outrageous statement: "the only reason I gave him the
job because I felt loyalty." The only reason? Not to execute
the laws of the land as his oath requires? Sessions took an
oath, but it wasn't one of loyalty to the President. Trump
expects him to break that oath out of some personal loyalty?
Trump was almost shouting that he expected Sessions to
obstruct justice for him. If Trump is impeached, I think we can
expect that quote to show up.
[quote]I agree. Trump's acts to pardon people now will be
politically perilous. He is a reckless personality, though.
[/quote]He might get a thrill out of the power to pardon. If he
starts feeling too powerless in other areas, he might go on a
spree of pardons.
[quote]Deripaska, I understand, has fled to Moscow and will not
be facing the charges that Manifort will be facing at his next
trial. I suppose that enough will be raised to create even more
civil and criminal actions in the state and Federal courts for
both Manifort, Cohen, and the Trumps.
[/quote]I'm adding Deripaska to the topics I follow at MSN. One
story, courtesy of TASS:
August 21, 2018
http://tass.com/economy/1018074
The bank accounts of Russian businessmen Oleg Deripaska and
Viktor Vekselberg in Cyprus have been frozen after the US
Treasury put them on the sanctions list. This is according to
the testimony by Sigal Mandelker, Under Secretary of the US
Treasury. She made this report for the hearings at the Senate
Committee of the US Congress.
Following April 6 oligarch designations, Oleg Deripaska and
Viktor Vekselberg both have their accounts frozen," she said in
her testimony.
According to the US Treasury, as a result of sanctions, the
fortune of Deripaska decreased by half (Forbes estimated it at
$6.7 bln in 2018). The fortune of Vekselberg shrank from $16.4
bln as of April 5 to $14.4 bln as of July 26.
According to the document, over the past year and a half, the US
authorities "have pressed Cypriot officials to harden its
financial system against large volume of suspicious Russian
funds and investments."
An older story:
August 13, 2018
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/oleg-deripaska-offers-sanctio…
Oleg Deripaska�s aluminium-to-energy group En+ has presented the
final version of a plan to the US Treasury in a bid to free
itself from sanctions, which threaten to sink the company and
upend global metal markets.
Under the proposal, which has been filed with the Office of
Foreign Assets Control (Ofac), Mr Deripaska has agreed to reduce
his holding in London-listed En+ to below 45 per cent from
around 70 per cent currently, primarily through the transfer of
shares to VTB, a Russian bank with close links to the Kremlin.
The plan, which has not yet been approved by Washington,
represents a major concession to the US following its
unprecedented move in April to try to end Mr Deripaska�s
ownership of London-listed En+, which controls Rusal, the
biggest aluminium producer outside China.
While the involvement in the plan of VTB � a bank that is itself
under US sanctions � may raise questions in Washington, people
familiar with the proposal say it would only hold the En+ shares
briefly until sanctions are lifted.
At that point it would sell them into the market to cover loans
it has made to Mr Deripaska, which he has struggled to service
and repay since he was sanctioned in April. During the brief
period VTB controls the shares, their voting rights would also
be controlled by two US citizens appointed by En+.
�This would be a really successful outcome for the US,� said one
person with knowledge of the proposal. �They have given
Deripaska a bloody nose and ended his control of the company.�
I doubt Deripaska would be willing to testify in an American
court in exchange for access to his money in Cyprus; but he is
struggling financially. First Manafort welched on his loan, and
now his money in Cyprus is frozen because someone at Treasury
put sanctions on him. Maybe Trump will start thinking about
firing the Secretary of the Treasury and replacing him too? I
know one thing: If I were Oleg Deripaska, I'd be furious with
both Paul Manafort and Donald Trump. Deripaska may not want to
testify in an American court, but if he has damaging
information, he may want to say a few things. At this point,
what does he have to lose? And if the Russian plan is to
create as much chaos in America as possible, even Putin might
approve of Deripaska testifying.
#Post#: 19795--------------------------------------------------
Re: Act III
By: Kerry Date: August 25, 2018, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Steele and Oleg Deripaska have the same lawyer. I
wonder if that is significant or if it means nothing? How could
one lawyer represent them both without a conflict of interest?
August 24, 2018
https://pjmedia.com/trending/lawyer-for-steele-and-deripaska-may-have-lied-to-s…
Washington lobbyist and lawyer Adam Waldman appears to have lied
to Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley about his
whereabouts in order to avoid testifying before the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
Waldman represents Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and former
British spy Christopher Steele, who were both heavily involved
with the Democrat-funded salacious and unverified anti-Trump
dossier, which was the basis of the FBI investigation into
then-candidate Donald Trump.
Steele also worked with DOJ official Bruce Ohr to help Deripaska
obtain a U.S. visa in 2016 during the same time period he was
compiling the anti-Trump dossier. Deripaska had his visa revoked
by the State Department in 2006 purportedly due to concerns
about his links to organized crime.
The investigators have found that Ohr, who was the
fourth-highest ranking official in the DOJ at the time, acted as
an intermediary between Steele (after he was terminated as a
source) and the FBI as it investigated Steele's allegations
about the Trump campaign's ties with Russia.
It makes me ask if Deripaska was one of Steele's sources for the
Trump Dossier? No, that couldn't be true, could it? Well,
maybe it could be true -- unexpected but possible. Is it
possible that Deripaska passed on fake information about Trump
to Steele? Could Manafort have infiltrated the Trump campaign
to get information for the Russians -- to compromise or
undermine Trump? Was Trump duped?
#Post#: 19805--------------------------------------------------
Re: Act III
By: HOLLAND Date: August 26, 2018, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
^^^It's really murky at the present moment, Kerry; and, those
are very good questions. We can be sure, I think, at this point
that the President has been compromised, somehow, and no longer
is his own master. Of course, a man lacking his own
self-possession is never in control of himself.
At best, Trump is a notional agent of a foreign power. I hope
it's not worse than that. He played his life's gamble and he
lost . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-jchlnvJM
Trump could never play the hero, or the hero's best friend,
which is regrettable. He will have a squalid end in the midst
of his supposed riches . . .
#Post#: 19812--------------------------------------------------
Re: Act III
By: Kerry Date: August 26, 2018, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=HOLLAND link=topic=1354.msg19805#msg19805
date=1535293323]
^^^It's really murky at the present moment, Kerry; and, those
are very good questions. We can be sure, I think, at this point
that the President has been compromised, somehow, and no longer
is his own master. Of course, a man lacking his own
self-possession is never in control of himself.
At best, Trump is a notional agent of a foreign power. I hope
it's not worse than that. He played his life's **** and he lost
. . .
Trump could never play the hero, or the hero's best friend,
which is regrettable. He will have a squalid end in the midst
of his supposed riches . . .
[/quote]I wonder if he will ever get over his personal feelings
of betrayal and figure out what happened? I'd say most of his
life was spent coldly calculating who might be useful to him,
then putting on a show of friendliness and loyalty. Real
affection doesn't seem to part of his play book. "Well, birds
of a feather flock together, so do the pigs and swine." He
really shouldn't be too surprised when these people turn on him.
He can feel betrayed if he wants; but the truth is he would
betray them if it suited him. There is no honor among this type
of person.
He doesn't understand people with principles, doesn't grasp the
concept of impartial judgment. We've seen Trump mock some
people who had principles. It would be hard indeed to become
of one Trump's inner circle if you had principles you lived by.
The decent man, however, being guided by principles and
impartiality, seeks out like-minded people. He doesn't have to
fret about loyalty among his associates because he knows if he
does no wrong, his friends will defend him, not out of personal
reasons but out of principles and their commitment to justice.
It's to be expected that we're seeing associates of Trump
turning against him. When he is no longer in a position to do
favors for them, why should they continue to genuflect to him?
They'll try to curry favor with someone else, someone who might
be able to do them favors.
A while back, Cohen had said that he thought Trump should help
pay his legal bills. Trump didn't respond by giving him
financial help. Trump was no longer useful to Cohen. When
Cohen flipped, he was obviously of no further use to Trump.
Trump's allies then attacked Cohen as a habitual liar, etc. Oh
really? If Trump and his current allies knew he was a man with
such low morals, why did Trump associate with him?
Manafort's case is interesting since perhaps things haven't
reached that point yet. There it looks as if Trump might still
be in a position to do a favor. Thus Trump's made no secret
that he's considering a possible pardon. He's also continued to
flatter Manafort. From the personalities involved, I'd say
Trump is dangling a pardon in front of Manafort, hoping to buy
his silence about something. In short, it suggests Manafort
has damaging evidence on Trump.
I understand that Manafort's next trial will have something to
do with Russian connections. Yet today I heard Trump talking
about the trial that's over, saying there was no evidence of
Russian anything.
Where did those millions of dollars owed to Deripaska disappear
to? Gates might not have known; but I think Manafort does.
Surely he knows. What is Trump trying to buy Manafort's
silence about? Is there a connection? I think there could be.
Money answers all things, Solomon said; and it's beyond bizarre
to me that Manafort worked for free for Trump when he owed
Deripaska millions of dollars. I can't get it to gel in my mind
though -- I think some facts must be missing.
There is another possible connection to the Russians via Cohen.
Don't forget that the story was out there that the Russian
weightlifter contacted Ivanka to see if her father wanted to
establish some backdoor relationship with the Russians; and
Cohen nixed the idea, saying he already had a relationship set
up.
#Post#: 19813--------------------------------------------------
Re: Act III
By: HOLLAND Date: August 26, 2018, 7:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1354.msg19812#msg19812
date=1535324537]
I wonder if he will ever get over his personal feelings of
betrayal and figure out what happened?[/quote]
I suppose, Kerry, that mentally, Trump does figure out what's
happening to him, but I suspect his ego is so fragile, he morphs
the meaning of what happens into something that is flattering to
himself and/or casts himself as a victim. Trump, as a guilty
person, is always in need to justify himself, to justify his
self-worth. At a certain point when his ego is satisfied, he
will act accordingly viewing himself as a great man or as a
victim worthy of dealing harshly with his enemies.
[quote]I'd say most of his life was spent coldly calculating who
might be useful to him, then putting on a show of friendliness
and loyalty. Real affection doesn't seem to part of his play
book. "Well, birds of a feather flock together, so do the pigs
and swine." He really shouldn't be too surprised when these
people turn on him. He can feel betrayed if he wants; but the
truth is he would betray them if it suited him. There is no
honor among this type of person.[/quote]
I agree. I also think that given his inner hollowness, his
weakness, he will not have the cold-bloodedness that is
characteristic of a crime boss of a multi-national criminal
organization. I am sure he idolizes criminal bosses and is
envious that he can never become one.
[quote]He doesn't understand people with principles, doesn't
grasp the concept of impartial judgment. We've seen Trump mock
some people who had principles. It would be hard indeed to
become of one Trump's inner circle if you had principles you
lived by. The decent man, however, being guided by principles
and impartiality, seeks out like-minded people. He doesn't have
to fret about loyalty among his associates because he knows if
he does no wrong, his friends will defend him, not out of
personal reasons but out of principles and their commitment to
justice.[/quote]
I agree. I'm inclined that he would accept the principles of
criminal organization, the need for absolute obedience and
omerta in the face of the legal authorities. But even this is
dictated by expediency and/or the need for profit and power.
[quote]It's to be expected that we're seeing associates of
Trump turning against him. When he is no longer in a position
to do favors for them, why should they continue to genuflect to
him? They'll try to curry favor with someone else, someone who
might be able to do them favors.[/quote]
This is how crime families operate. Based on power and profit,
the loyalty is there as long as the money and power comes in.
If that is threatened or is lost that means the ending of that
crime family's capos.
[quote]A while back, Cohen had said that he thought Trump
should help pay his legal bills. Trump didn't respond by giving
him financial help. Trump was no longer useful to Cohen.
When Cohen flipped, he was obviously of no further use to Trump.
Trump's allies then attacked Cohen as a habitual liar, etc. Oh
really? If Trump and his current allies knew he was a man with
such low morals, why did Trump associate with him?[/quote]
This is where Trump fails as a crime boss. He fails to realize
that he needs to defends his associates in order to buttress his
power. I suspect that Trump lost his nerve early on. He
probably wanted to support Cohen but drew back fearing, quite
properly, that it would draw too much attention. There could
also be the possibility that Cohen has compromising information
on Trump and that Trump knows this, and maybe knew it before it
became public knowledge, and deeply resented it.
In a certain sense, thinking of Trump as a crime boss, he does
not sufficiently rule others in a way that terrorizes them. The
average mafia "joe" was always worried about dying, about being
killed by the capos if he was perceived as having become
inconvenient or as having become too unprofitable for his
upkeep. Trump has to deal with too many "loose cannons" and is
failing at it.
[quote]Manafort's case is interesting since perhaps things
haven't reached that point yet. There it looks as if Trump
might still be in a position to do a favor. Thus Trump's made
no secret that he's considering a possible pardon. He's also
continued to flatter Manafort. From the personalities involved,
I'd say Trump is dangling a pardon in front of Manafort, hoping
to buy his silence about something. In short, it suggests
Manafort has damaging evidence on Trump.[/quote]
i agree. If Manafort has nothing to offer Trump, Trump would
discard him without any further worries. That situation does
not exist and so The Donald has to do something, even things
that may be dangerous to himself.
[quote]I understand that Manafort's next trial will have
something to do with Russian connections. Yet today I heard
Trump talking about the trial that's over, saying there was no
evidence of Russian anything.[/quote]
As a habitual deceiver and self-deceiver, Trump will say and try
to believe anything that would inflate his ego or his possible
personal and legal safety. One of the sad things about
consummate self-deceivers such as Trump is their eventual doom
even though that doom is staring them in the face. I think
we'll see this in Trump and, despite knowing much about it, we
will still find it mystifying.
[quote]Where did those millions of dollars owed to Deripaska
disappear to? Gates might not have known; but I think Manafort
does. Surely he knows. What is Trump trying to buy Manafort's
silence about? Is there a connection? I think there could be.
Money answers all things, Solomon said; and it's beyond bizarre
to me that Manafort worked for free for Trump when he owed
Deripaska millions of dollars. I can't get it to gel in my mind
though -- I think some facts must be missing. [/quote]
I don't understand the possible criminal financial transactions
involving Deripaska, Gates and Manafort. I have the suspicion
that Trump has laundered money for the Russian mafia in the past
and that these people have connections concerning those
transactions. I guess we will have to wait and see what the
trial will reveal. Once that happens, I suspect the Trump
family will have its back against the wall and will not be able
to retreat.
[quote]There is another possible connection to the Russians via
Cohen. Don't forget that the story was out there that the
Russian weightlifter contacted Ivanka to see if her father
wanted to establish some backdoor relationship with the
Russians; and Cohen nixed the idea, saying he already had a
relationship set up.
[/quote]
That is quite possible. I suspect that Trump "name brand" is
going to be effectively dead in September when the trial gets
underway. I suspect that as the trial prosecutor puts forward
their charges, the New York Attorney General will develop an
interest to any possible state crimes. I suspect that Trump and
his family will be in litigation for years and will eventually
lose their wealth and their flamboyant lifestyles. Certainly
the public is going to tire of them however they may be popular
today.
#Post#: 19818--------------------------------------------------
Re: Act III
By: HOLLAND Date: August 27, 2018, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I heard it said this morning on MSNBC that the White House flags
are no longer at half-mast. I suspect Trump's temper about
McCain and all the media coverage concerning him to be running
very hot right now. According to McCain's instructions, he
doesn't want Trump to attend or speak at his funeral. The flag
at full mast does send a message, doesn't it? :(
*****************************************************
Next Page
You are viewing proxied material from gopher.createaforum.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.