1. #15001
    Merely a Setback Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    25,582
    When there's multiple nooses around your neck, it's hard to keep track of which one is tightening first.

    The House Oversight Committee is suggesting that one of Trump's lawyers --

    "Cohen?"

    No.

    "Giulliani?"

    No.

    "That guy who looks like Wilford Brimley on the set of Tombstone?"

    Dammit. Sheri Dillon. Apparently, she testified before the OGE with multiple conflicting stories about if/how Trump owed Cohen money. And from the looks of things, some/all of those conflicting stories also conflict with what Cohen is now saying in his plea deal. Dillon even apparently conferred with "the filer" (Trump) before saying no money was owed. Oops.

    We all know what happens when your lawyer lies under oath (or its Congressional equiv). And, if you don't, I'm sure @cubby will give an answer that rhymes with "she's mucked".

  2. #15002
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    We all know what happens when your lawyer lies under oath (or its Congressional equiv). And, if you don't, I'm sure @cubby will give an answer that rhymes with "she's mucked".
    The most likely thing is that she was lied to, and she thought she was telling the truth at the time, so she's probably not in any real jeopardy. The fact that their story changed in light of new data isn't a mark against the lawyers. They still have to provide the best advocacy they can in the face of new data, and this is the horseshit story they came up with once either trump came clean or they were provided proof that contradicted their claims.

    So again, I'm going to assume that what we already know remains true: trump is a pathological liar who will lie to anyone about anything, including to his lawyers about money he owes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  3. #15003
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Read the linked document. Wikileaks is "organisation 1." The stone communications the SC has came from search warrants executed on GRU operatives. Both of those things are easily discernible if you actually read it.
    You only put quote from it about GRU, not Wikileaks though.

    It would be helpful if you had quote linking the two instead.

  4. #15004
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    You only put quote from it about GRU, not Wikileaks though.

    It would be helpful if you had quote linking the two instead.
    I don't care as much about that, so I didn't bother. Read the document if you want, that's why I linked it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  5. #15005
    Merely a Setback Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    25,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    The most likely thing is that she was lied to, and she thought she was telling the truth at the time, so she's probably not in any real jeopardy.
    Hmm. Question: if you instruct your lawyer to lie under oath, and she does, you're both fucked. If you lie to your lawyer, and your lawyer therefore unknowingly lies under oath by proxy, then what? For one, is she still your lawyer?

  6. #15006
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Hmm. Question: if you instruct your lawyer to lie under oath, and she does, you're both fucked. If you lie to your lawyer, and your lawyer therefore unknowingly lies under oath by proxy, then what? For one, is she still your lawyer?
    most lawyers would just quit but they don't have to. as far as legal consequences tho the lawyer would be safe as long as they could prove they didn't know the statement was a lie and had no good reason to think they where lied to, their client may be fucked tho for soliciting a false testimony.

  7. #15007
    Scarab Lord Poopymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    4,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Canpinter View Post
    most lawyers would just quit but they don't have to. as far as legal consequences tho the lawyer would be safe as long as they could prove they didn't know the statement was a lie and had no good reason to think they where lied to, their client may be fucked tho for soliciting a false testimony.
    "Your honor, I did not knowingly lie. My client, who is unable to tell the truth when his presidency depends upon it or pretty much any other time, told me. I had no reason to believe they were telling me a lie me. Other than his lips were moving."
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok

  8. #15008
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    A) "This is what Trump told me."
    B) "I wasn't told anything about that."
    You forgot C) "I'm just the coffee boy."

  9. #15009
    Merely a Setback Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    25,582
    Mueller subpoena's (former) employee of Cambridge Analytica.

    Hmm. Neat.

    The ex-employee, Brittany Kaiser, is cooperating fully with Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, the spokesperson added. Kaiser is also cooperating with congressional and other legal investigations into the actions of Cambridge Analytica.

    Cambridge Analytica shut down last year after becoming embroiled in controversy for improperly obtaining data on tens of millions of Facebook users.

    Kaiser says that the subpoena came after The Guardian reported last year that she met in 2017 with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange while she was still working for Cambridge Analytica, according to the newspaper. WikiLeaks is a focus of Mueller's probe because it released hacked Democratic emails ahead of the 2016 election.

    The special counsel has also previously probed the ties between Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign.

    In a case stemming from Mueller's probe, federal prosecutors have already charged Sam Patten, another former employee of the firm and an ex-associate of Paul Manafort.

    Patten pleaded guilty last year to illegal foreign lobbying after he was charged with failing to register as a foreign agent for Ukraine's Opposition Bloc. Patten, who agreed to cooperate with the special counsel, is scheduled to be sentenced in April.
    "Ukraine's Opposition Bloc" basically means Russians. And, yes, Paul Manafort worked for them.

    We've heard plenty about CA but not recently. Well, with Roger Stone in the crosshairs, this new development is not a massive surprise.

  10. #15010
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Mueller subpoena's (former) employee of Cambridge Analytica.
    Hmm. Neat.
    "Ukraine's Opposition Bloc" basically means Russians. And, yes, Paul Manafort worked for them.
    No matter how often you repeat that, "Ukraine's Opposition Block" doesn't mean "Russians". It's Ukrainians.

  11. #15011
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    No matter how often you repeat that, "Ukraine's Opposition Block" doesn't mean "Russians". It's Ukrainians.
    If they are evacuated in the dead of night, escorted by the Russian military, hiding in Russia, they are pretty much Russians now.

  12. #15012
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    If they are evacuated in the dead of night, escorted by the Russian military, hiding in Russia, they are pretty much Russians now.
    That was "Party of Regions", and just their head, Ukrainian President Yanukovich, not "Opposition Block".

    They share plenty of people between them, but they are not exactly the same.

    "Opposition Block" are those who were not afraid to stay.

  13. #15013
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    27,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    When there's multiple nooses around your neck, it's hard to keep track of which one is tightening first.

    The House Oversight Committee is suggesting that one of Trump's lawyers --

    "Cohen?"

    No.

    "Giulliani?"

    No.

    "That guy who looks like Wilford Brimley on the set of Tombstone?"

    Dammit. Sheri Dillon. Apparently, she testified before the OGE with multiple conflicting stories about if/how Trump owed Cohen money. And from the looks of things, some/all of those conflicting stories also conflict with what Cohen is now saying in his plea deal. Dillon even apparently conferred with "the filer" (Trump) before saying no money was owed. Oops.

    We all know what happens when your lawyer lies under oath (or its Congressional equiv). And, if you don't, I'm sure @cubby will give an answer that rhymes with "she's mucked".
    She's definitely plucked. I guess people think they can get away with this shit because so far a lot of them have. Of course, that's all going to change.

    Reminder to everyone - if this whole investigation gets buried by the Trump administration (and his newly minted AG), and the House can't get it subpoenaed, and it isn't leaked by a Mueller staffer, and Pelosi doesn't hire Mueller at the House Special Prosecutor (and ask for any preliminary findings, lol) - then the incoming 2021 president can restart the whole thing and get the unedited report then.
    No one is above the law!

  14. #15014
    Merely a Setback Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    25,582
    An interesting take from this OP ED that I hadn't considered.

    Trump is faced with his own failure after his own failure. By constantly refusing to deliver on his promises -- or worse, for such promises to have the opposite effect -- he's in great danger of losing his base. Coal? Farms? Refunds? Health care? Fucking NAFTA 1.0.0.2 isn't even signed.

    The "national security lol" for the Wall, says the OP EDitor, isn't about the Wall. It's about riling up the base, to get re-elected, so that the statute of limitations runs out while he's still in office.

    This will not be an easy sell. Remember, Trump's rabid fanbase is pretending. They know they backed a lying loser. And they know votes are secret. Remember last election when people were ashamed to admit they voted for Trump? This might very well be the opposite: people claiming to vote for Trump, while silently exacting revenge.

    Unless Trump starts delivering. Hence, "national security lol". Hence, the seemingly irrational, illegal, unConstitutional move purely to keep his base from further eroding.

    - - - Updated - - -

    House investigation forms up with the target being the NRA's ties with Russia.

    Specifically, they want details on how much of the Russian money they got was laundered into with 2016 election.

    The fact that the NRA lied about whether their trip to Russia was official/endorsed isn't helping their case.

  15. #15015
    Immortal Stormspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    7,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    An interesting take from this OP ED that I hadn't considered.

    Trump is faced with his own failure after his own failure. By constantly refusing to deliver on his promises -- or worse, for such promises to have the opposite effect -- he's in great danger of losing his base. Coal? Farms? Refunds? Health care? Fucking NAFTA 1.0.0.2 isn't even signed.

    The "national security lol" for the Wall, says the OP EDitor, isn't about the Wall. It's about riling up the base, to get re-elected, so that the statute of limitations runs out while he's still in office.

    This will not be an easy sell. Remember, Trump's rabid fanbase is pretending. They know they backed a lying loser. And they know votes are secret. Remember last election when people were ashamed to admit they voted for Trump? This might very well be the opposite: people claiming to vote for Trump, while silently exacting revenge.

    Unless Trump starts delivering. Hence, "national security lol". Hence, the seemingly irrational, illegal, unConstitutional move purely to keep his base from further eroding.

    - - - Updated - - -

    House investigation forms up with the target being the NRA's ties with Russia.

    Specifically, they want details on how much of the Russian money they got was laundered into with 2016 election.

    The fact that the NRA lied about whether their trip to Russia was official/endorsed isn't helping their case.
    Yeah, we know the NRA is funded and run from Russia and has been for awhile now. It's effectively a Russian money laundering front. This should've been done years ago.

  16. #15016
    Merely a Setback Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    25,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormspark View Post
    It's effectively a Russian money laundering front. This should've been done years ago.
    It's not 100% Russian of course. But the correct amount of Russian money to be put into an American election is $0. The NRA didn't do that.

    Also, we have Butina now. That's kind of a big deal.

  17. #15017
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    It's not 100% Russian of course. But the correct amount of Russian money to be put into an American election is $0. The NRA didn't do that.

    Also, we have Butina now. That's kind of a big deal.
    Oh, i checked Google for her next court hearing date (it's Feb 26 btw, just a week later), and found this gem of an article:
    The Spy Who Wasn't
    And this one:
    Let Me Tell You About My Friend Maria Butina — Who Might Be A Russian Spy
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2019-02-18 at 07:23 PM.

  18. #15018

  19. #15019
    The New Republic piece is certainly a better one; Refinery29 is just interesting personal "friend" take.

  20. #15020
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Oh, i checked Google for her next court hearing date (it's Feb 26 btw, just a week later), and found this gem of an article:
    The Spy Who Wasn't
    And this one:
    Let Me Tell You About My Friend Maria Butina — Who Might Be A Russian Spy
    This just in, Russian claims that Russian Spy is not a Spy!

    Reminds me of when Eisenhower claims Francis Gary Powers was a intrepid weatherman. Spoiler alert: He wasn't.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •