Page 193 of 194 FirstFirst ... 93143183185186187188189190191192193194 LastLast
Results 4,801 to 4,825 of 4828
  1. #4801
    Thailand Expat
    Farangrakthai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Bullshit.
    rosenstein's said the same (as i posted):

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/16/p...ent/index.html

    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein publicly discussed the issue earlier this month at an event held by the Freedom Forum Institute. He was asked if a sitting president can be indicted.

    "The Department of Justice has in the past, when the issue arose, has opined that a sitting President cannot be indicted"

  2. #4802
    Thailand Expat
    Farangrakthai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    OK... stop lying.
    well, i won't give you the last word, if you're accusing me of lying.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai View Post
    1. some of trump's associates (manafort, etc.) go to court later this year for charges not related to "trump conspired with the russians to defeat hillary".

    2. at some point, mueller will present his findings to the house who will decide whether to impeach trump. if impeached, it will take 2/3 of senators to convict him.
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    your "simple, clear summary" is neither actually clear nor correct.
    the "simple, clear summary" is my two points.

    what do you think it is?

  3. #4803
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    29,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
    anyways, ant: you can have the last word.
    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
    well, i won't give you the last word, if you're accusing me of lying.
    I said stop lying, not continue on doing it.

    Every time you say you'll give me the last word you don't.

    Liar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
    what do you think it is?
    It has nothing to do with what you say it does.

    Stop lying. Again, that was stop​.

  4. #4804
    Thailand Expat
    Farangrakthai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai View Post
    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/16/p...ent/index.html

    By Dana Bash, CNN
    Updated 2254 GMT (0654 HKT) May 16, 2018

    Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has informed President Donald Trump's attorneys that they have concluded that they cannot indict a sitting president, according to the President's lawyer.
    fucking idiot
    great contribution to the debate, bsnub.

    for your next comment are you going to talk about ant's penis again?


  5. #4805
    Thailand Expat
    Farangrakthai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    It has nothing to do with what you say it does.
    so, what is the "simple, clear summary" you're referring to in that post?

    link?

    anyways, ant: this time, you can have the last word as you're just going to go around in circles, posting a bunch of words, but not actually saying anything (as per usual).

    with your pal, bsnub, by your side.

    Quote Originally Posted by crackerjack101 View Post
    Are you saying that no Frenchman could be of colour, as in black?
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    No it is not possible. They can have French citizenship but that does not make them French. Never seen a black Frenchmen.

  6. #4806
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    29,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai View Post
    you can have the last word
    Where have I heard that before... ?

    Oh that's right:

    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
    anyways, ant: you can have the last word.
    About 20 min ago.

    When you lied. Again.


  7. #4807
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Location
    across the street
    Posts
    2,346
    Whatever gets reported by Mueller in the end will come down to Congress. So it's a moot talking point til after November.
    Last edited by uncle junior; 17-05-2018 at 10:44 AM.

  8. #4808
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,531
    Quote Originally Posted by uncle junior View Post
    So it's a moot talking point til after November.
    ...probably so...and if the point unmoots, I'd stay away from the fan blades...

  9. #4809
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 05:07 PM
    Posts
    15,182

    Mueller has a lot of options besides indicting Trump. Here they are

    Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies. The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.

    According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:

    First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.

    But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.

    If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?

    That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.

    Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.

    That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.

    In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.

    This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.

    Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.

    At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.

    The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/polit...mes/index.html

  10. #4810
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    29,256
    Worth keeping in mind also that despite all FaRT's attempts at disingenuity and muddying the waters:

    Mueller has secured guilty pleas from three former Trump campaign or administration officials, charged the former campaign head, and levied charges against a total of 19 people and three companies - five of which have already plead guilty including former national security adviser Michael Flynn, deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates and campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos - for "a combined 75 criminal charges, ranging from alleged conspiracy against the United States, bank fraud and tax violations to lying to FBI investigators and identity fraud".

  11. #4811
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Location
    across the street
    Posts
    2,346
    Trump Jr. and Other Aides Met With Gulf Emissary Offering Help to Win Election

    WASHINGTON — Three months before the 2016 election, a small group gathered at Trump Tower to meet with Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son. One was an Israeli specialist in social media manipulation. Another was an emissary for two wealthy Arab princes. The third was a Republican donor with a controversial past in the Middle East as a private security contractor.

    The meeting was convened primarily to offer help to the Trump team, and it forged relationships between the men and Trump insiders that would develop over the coming months — past the election and well into President Trump’s first year in office, according to several people with knowledge of their encounters.

    Erik Prince, the private security contractor and the former head of Blackwater, arranged the meeting, which took place on Aug. 3, 2016. The emissary, George Nader, told Donald Trump Jr. that the princes who led Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were eager to help his father win election as president. The social media specialist, Joel Zamel, extolled his company’s ability to give an edge to a political campaign; by that time, the firm had already drawn up a multi-million-dollar proposal for a social media manipulation effort to help elect Mr. Trump.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/u...nce-zamel.html

  12. #4812
    back to work SKkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    pounding pavement
    Posts
    3,564
    Quote Originally Posted by uncle junior View Post
    Gulf Emissary Offering Help to Win Election
    Going to need another thread title change for that one.


    Any day now...something big is gonna happen.




  13. #4813
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Posts
    49,802
    I think we just wait until Erik Prince is invited to review the testimony he gave under oath....

  14. #4814
    Custom Title Changer
    CSFFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    24-05-2018 @ 09:06 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    6,802
    Has Hope left Trump?

    Why is the RNC financing Hope Hicks' legal defense in the Mueller probe to the tune of almost half a million dollars?

    The Republican National Committee paid $450,000 in April to the law firm representing Hope Hicks in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, new [/FONT][/COLOR]public disclosures show. Hicks retained Robert Trout of Washington litigation firm Trout Cacheris & Janis as investigations into links between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russian officials heated up in the fall of 2017.

    The RNC and the Trump campaign previously acknowledged paying legal bills for Trump and others involved in the Russia investigation, including the president’s family members. In 2017, the RNC spent $230,000 to cover the president’s legal fees and spent close to $200,000 on Donald Trump Jr.'s legal fees.

    Neither had acknowledged paying bills on Hicks' behalf, and the new disclosure filed on Sunday with the Federal Election Commission did not name her. Such disclosures do not usually specify the clients or nature of the legal work at issue.

    The filing showed that the RNC made payments to Trout Cacheris & Janis of $275,534.09 on April 18 and $176,245.87 on April 19. Both payments were marked as “legal and compliance services.”

    An RNC spokesman did not respond to requests for comment about the payments.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...l-bills-600959
    Did the DNC help pay for Hillary's email representation? I couldn't find any articles in a quick look. I wonder if the DNC helped Obama with legal fees as well.

    At what point does the RNC stop using donor's contributions to keep republicans out of jail?
    "I was a good student. I comprehend very well, OK, better than I think almost anybody," - President Trump comparing his legal knowledge to a Federal judge.

  15. #4815
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    11,754
    i saw that yesterday.....500 K.....she's clearly in deep shit for the BS response to the trump tower meeting.

    IIRC, one of trumps lawyers resigned because he thought hicks was obstructing justice...and that same lawyer (corallo?) actually requested a meeting with mueller's team.....apparently corallo testified that she said something along the lines that "the emails would never get out"....which is tantamount to obstruction of justice.

    she's fcuked.

  16. #4816
    Custom Title Changer
    CSFFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    24-05-2018 @ 09:06 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    6,802

  17. #4817
    Thailand Expat
    jamescollister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    24-05-2018 @ 08:50 PM
    Location
    Bunthrik Ubon
    Posts
    4,485
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    i saw that yesterday.....500 K.....she's clearly in deep shit for the BS response to the trump tower meeting.

    IIRC, one of trumps lawyers resigned because he thought hicks was obstructing justice...and that same lawyer (corallo?) actually requested a meeting with mueller's team.....apparently corallo testified that she said something along the lines that "the emails would never get out"....which is tantamount to obstruction of justice.

    she's fcuked.
    That's some sort of joke [story] lawyer resigns because he believes his client is not telling the truth, then goes over to the prosecution and tells them so.

    Not the US legal system, no lawyer would ever have a client, if his legal defense could go and turn over evidence to the prosecution.

    No murderer, rapist, thief, insider trader, banker or politician would be safe.

  18. #4818
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    11,754
    ^ why do you persist in posting on topics you don't have even the slightest bit of knowledge about?

    corallo didn't represent hicks or trump jr, you idiot.


    http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-...meeting-2018-1

  19. #4819
    Custom Title Changer
    CSFFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    24-05-2018 @ 09:06 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    6,802
    Quote Originally Posted by jamescollister View Post
    That's some sort of joke [story] lawyer resigns because he believes his client is not telling the truth,
    It's a lawyer's duty to report the possible obstruction of the truth in testimony to the court. A lawyer can be held in contempt of court if they're proved to have withheld evidence of a crime.

  20. #4820
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    11,754
    in addition to doing the right thing, he didn't want to get ensnared in this mess....and pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees....and go to jail.

  21. #4821
    Custom Title Changer
    CSFFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    24-05-2018 @ 09:06 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    6,802
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    in addition to doing the right thing, he didn't want to get ensnared in this mess....and pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees....and go to jail.
    Or rely on Trump's loyality to his "team"

  22. #4822
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    11,754
    for trump, loyalty is a one way street.

  23. #4823
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Location
    across the street
    Posts
    2,346

    How long before some of these guys start having convenient 'accidents'....


    Michael Cohen’s Business Partner Agrees to Cooperate as Part of Plea Deal


    http://Michael Cohen’s Business Part...t of Plea Deal

  24. #4824
    Thailand Expat
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Posts
    7,085
    no doubt Trump is a coward, and dodgy and will get burn to the stake eventually

    but his great purpose is to take down as many as possible

  25. #4825
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    26,375
    Is it just me or does this seem like a dumb idea?
    It seems this would give them the FBI chance to dig even deeper and look in corners they otherwise may not have.
    Donald Trump has dramatically escalated his attacks on the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the US election, and his fightback against the Department of Justice reached a turning point this week with aspects of the inquiry itself now being investigated.

    The president’s growing frustration with special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry now appears to be having an impact at high levels.


    Trump’s fresh offensive came as reports indicated an FBI informant was in contact with several Trump campaign officials in 2016. Trump swiftly seized on the news to claim, without evidence, that the FBI had planted a spy within his campaign and demanded that the DoJ investigate the matter.


    Now a meeting will be held on Thursday between top government officials and two senior Republican lawmakers – but no Democrats – to allow the Congressmen to review classified information relating to claims the FBI deployed a confidential source to gather information on Trump’s presidential campaign, the White House said on Tuesday afternoon.


    Made against the backdrop of a series of characteristically fuming tweets, his demand signaled he was embracing an aggressive strategy to discredit the special counsel’s investigation.


    Trump was tweeting busily and ferociously on Wednesday morning, with declarations such as: “SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!” and inflammatory, conspiracy-style talk about the government he heads as the “Criminal Deep State”.




    Donald J. Trump

    @realDonaldTrump
    Look how things have turned around on the Criminal Deep State. They go after Phony Collusion with Russia, a made up Scam, and end up getting caught in a major SPY scandal the likes of which this country may never have seen before! What goes around, comes around!


    6:54 PM - May 23, 2018




    “If they had spies in my campaign, that would be a disgrace to this country,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday. “It would be very illegal aside from everything else.”




    Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein responded to Trump’s demand by referring the president’s inquiry to the Office of the Inspector General, which acts as the justice department’s internal watchdog. Trump subsequently reached a deal with top officials at the justice department under which congressional leaders will be able to review highly classified information related to the investigation.




    Republicans to view classified information on claims FBI snooped on Trump campaign
    Read more
    The course of events raised fresh concerns over Trump’s willingness to break with precedent by flouting the norms that have historically ensured oversight of the executive branch.


    Trump’s combative nature has also increasingly been mimicked by his legal teamamid negotiations over the terms of a potential interview between the president and the special counsel. Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who has become the de facto public face of the president’s legal team, has been particularly aggressive while defending Trump in a stunning media tour that has served up numerous contradictions while trying to reshape the narrative.


    There has been no evidence to suggest that the FBI informant was embedded with Trump’s campaign. The informant, revealed on Monday as the former University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, was in contact with a number of Trump aides who had come under FBI scrutiny as the agency investigated communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow.




    The president has long cast the entire investigation as a “witch-hunt”, even as the special counsel has turned around indictments against 19 people and three companies in just a year’s time.


    “You have unprecedented dishonesty ... in terms of the false statements that issue from the White House on a daily basis,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, a lawyer and former Watergate prosecutor. “Provably false statements that by comparison make Richard Nixon look like George Washington.”


    Jack Sharman, who was special counsel to Congress during the Whitewater investigation into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s real estate affairs, said it was not unusual for a federal criminal investigation to expand in nature, and Trump’s constant aggressions could “cause more trouble than they’re worth”.


    “They maybe unintentionally can cause other people – including perhaps investigators – to take a different tack,” he said, adding that statements “can actually raise suspicions or cause problems”.


    The investigation has left Washington divided along familiar partisan lines, even as the president’s repeated outbursts against the FBI have often proved challenging for his own party.


    Pressure has mounted on Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, to more clearly denounce what critics see as efforts to interfere with Mueller’s investigation.


    In a largely symbolic vote, the Senate judiciary committee approved legislation last month designed to prevent a president from removing a special counsel. But the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, ruled out bringing the bill up for a full vote on the Senate floor.






    And Republican leaders have been characteristically muted in their criticism of Trump, often reiterating their support for the FBI but stopping short of dismissing the president’s claims of bias as unfounded.


    When asked about Trump’s “demand” that the justice department investigate whether the FBI infiltrated his campaign, the House speaker, Paul Ryan, expressed support for an inspector general review.


    “It’s really important that we conduct a proper oversight of the executive branch to make sure that that power is not or has not or will not be abused,” he said, adding: “I think it’s important that we just let the truth come out on all these things.”


    John Cornyn, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, went so far as to defend the president, saying he was raising an “important point”.


    As for the Democrats, Richard Blumenthal, who is on the Senate judiciary committee, said Trump and his allies were “weaponizing false claims” against the FBI and justice department.


    “This calculated, coordinated strategy,” he added, “is the last resort of many criminal defendants: when an investigation has you cornered, attack the investigators.”


    This week, Giuliani suggested Mueller would follow existing justice department guidelines under which a president cannot be indicted, raising instead the likelihood that the special counsel will issue a final report. Legal experts are more torn on whether a sitting president can be indicted.


    Regardless of the outcome, any evidence of impeachable offenses would place Trump’s fate firmly in the hands of Congress.


    But if there is to be a moment of reckoning, it may ultimately lie with the American public. And that is where Trump’s efforts to taint the FBI and its independence might prove most consequential.


    “What’s remarkable is the persistence of support that the president enjoys and exploits in the face of this dishonesty,” Ben-Veniste said.


    While polling has found a majority of Americans support Mueller’s investigation, a growing number of Republicans believe Trump is being framed. A striking 83% of Republican respondents to one recent survey agreed with the president’s characterization of the investigation as a “witch-hunt”.


    Topics
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-investigation
    "In my professional assessment as an intelligence officer, Trump has a reflexive, defensive, monumentally narcissistic personality, for whom the facts and national interest are irrelevant, and the only thing that counts is whatever gives personal advantage and directs attention to himself."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

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