And that's the reason behind trump's rants...his boy is going to be indicted....Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
Printable View
And that's the reason behind trump's rants...his boy is going to be indicted....Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
^shouldn't be a problem, trump's got the best lawyers working on the case....
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=18025&stc=1
the problem is if you follow every money trails from the rich and famous, they will always lead to some stinking pile of shit sooner or laterQuote:
Originally Posted by CSFFan
everyone knows that, even Mueller
it's like accusing someone of drug trafficking because money notes you hold in your wallet can be tested positive for cocaine,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
...unfortunate generalizations...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
...no, it's not...I note your grasp of similes is weak...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
...^admission of guilt...
Admission of guilt and tossing jr under the bus.....two birds, one stone...win win for everybody
...more champagne!...Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle junior
I note you are projecting again and being a double standard hypocrite, as usual :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
the money trail of a billionaire is always full of shit, it's not generalization, it's a fact, dumbo bimbo, that's why you have lawyers handling these dirty businesses these days, to clean them up
more projections, wild cat ? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
...no, it's a generalization, but I understand your frustration with English...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
maybe you haven't hanged around anough billionaires, but I do, and I can tell they all had a dirty past with shitty money :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
Never any concern what the US astronouts talk about with the Russians on the ISS space station?
...*snigger*...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
...:rofl:...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
...so, you sniffed their fingers then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
don't be jealous dear, I am sure you had your share of dirty fingers when dating :)
Quote:
The White House's story on the Trump Tower meeting shifts — yet again
First, it was just about adoptions. Then it was a promise of dirt on Clinton, but it came to nothing. Then President Donald Trump didn’t draft his son’s initial statement. Then he did. Then it was “irrelevant.” And now Trump admits the meeting was “to get information on an opponent.”
If there’s one thing that’s been consistent about the White House’s explanation of the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower, it’s inconsistency.
Here’s a look at how the story has evolved:
June 9, 2016: Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort attend a meeting at Trump Tower with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and others.
July 8, 2017: Trump Jr.: “We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children.”
The New York Times reports on the June 9 meeting, prompting Trump Jr. to issue this statement: “It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up. I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.”
July 9, 2017: Trump Jr.: “No details or supporting information was provided or even offered.”
After the New York Times reports that Trump Jr. was promised damaging information about Clinton in the meeting, he issued a new statement: “After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.”
July 11, 2017: Trump Jr.: “The information they suggested they had about Hillary Clinton I thought was Political Opposition Research.”
The New York Times publishes emails exchanged between Rob Goldstone and Trump Jr., revealing that Goldstone said that the meeting would yield “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary” — and that Trump Jr. responded to that email by saying “if it's what you say I love it.”
In a Twitter statement preempting publication of the story, Trump Jr. wrote, “The information they suggested they had about Hillary Clinton I thought was Political Opposition Research. I first wanted to just have a phone call but when that didn't work out, they said the woman would be in New York and asked if I would meet. I decided to take the meeting. The woman, as she has said publicly, was not a government official. And, as we have said, she had no information to provide and wanted to talk about adoption policy and the Magnitsky Act.”
July 16, 2017: Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow: Trump was not involved in drafting July 8 statement.
On "Meet the Press," Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow said, “Let me say this — but I do want to be clear — that the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not issue the statement. It came from Donald Trump Jr.”
July 13, 2017: Trump: “Most people would have taken that meeting.”
During an appearance with French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump said, “I do think this: I think from a practical standpoint most people would have taken that meeting. It’s called opposition research or even research into your opponent.”
July 31, 2017: The Washington Post: Trump himself “personally dictated” the July 8 statement.
Aug. 1, 2017: White House press secretary Sarah Sanders: “He certainly didn’t dictate.”
In a press briefing, Sanders said, “He certainly didn’t dictate, but he — like I said, he weighed in, offered suggestion like any father would do.”
June 2, 2018: Trump lawyers: Trump “dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article.”
In a memo to special counsel Robert Mueller, Trump’s lawyers wrote, “You have received all of the notes, communications and testimony indicating that the President dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article on behalf of his son, Donald Trump, Jr. His son then followed up by making a full public disclosure regarding the meeting, including his public testimony that there was nothing to the meeting and certainly no evidence of collusion.”
June 3, 2018: Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani: Sekulow was just “uninformed” about Trump’s dictation of statement.
On "Meet the Press," Giuliani says “I think [Sekulow] was uninformed at the time just like I was when I came into the case. He was just in the case. This is a point that maybe wasn't clarified in terms of recollection and his understanding of it.”
June 15, 2018: Trump said statement to New York Times is “irrelevant” because it was not to a “high tribunal of judges.”
Trump told reporters in a gaggle at the White House: “It’s irrelevant. It’s a statement to the New York Times — the phony, failing New York Times … That’s not a statement to a high tribunal of judges.”
Aug. 5, 2018: Trump tweeted that the meeting was “to get information on an opponent” and “I did not know about it”
In a statement on Twitter, Trump said: “Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...-again-n897891
Meanwhile, Gates is singing like a canary.....
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ony/921899002/Quote:
Seven-year criminal conspiracy
Gates testified that he engaged in an extensive criminal conspiracy with Manafort that lasted seven years and included lying to the Internal Revenue Service to avoid paying taxes and providing false documents to banks to obtains millions of dollars in loans.
Secret overseas accounts
Gates said he helped Manafort hide secret bank accounts in the United Kingdom, Cyprus and the Grenadines. He said he followed Manafort's directions in failing to disclose the overseas accounts to federal tax authorities as required by law.
"Mr. Manafort requested ... that we did not disclose foreign bank accounts,” Gates testified. He said there were 15 secret accounts.
Stealing money
Gates, under questioning by prosecutor Greg Andres, admitted that he padded his expense accounts with phony charges without Manafort's knowledge, siphoning "several hundred thousand" dollars from the secret accounts. Gates said the money he took was sent to his account in the United Kingdom and was never disclosed to his accountants or the U.S. government. He also admitted to embezzling money from other employers in the past.
Tax and bank fraud
Gates said he falsely labeled hundreds of thousands of dollars in income as loans to reduce Manafort's tax liability. He also testified that he pressed the firm's accountants to reclassify loans as income so the company could qualify for more bank loans or get favorable lending rates.
Possible embezzlement of millions
Manafort’s attorneys went on the attack against Gates on Monday, alleging that Gates told accountants to falsify Manafort's tax returns because Gates was trying to cover up the fact that he had "embezzled millions of dollars" from their firm. Gates did not have a chance to respond to those allegations Monday.
Donald Trump has staked out the most confrontational stance toward Robert Mueller of anybody in his administration. The president repeatedly rages that the investigation is rigged, demands it end, and threatens to fire the special counsel, his boss (Rod Rosenstein), or his boss’s boss (Jeff Sessions), while Trump’s lawyers try to soothe him, even refusing to carry out his orders.
But on the question of whether to sit for an interview with Mueller, the dynamic is just the opposite. Trump is reportedly eager to grant the special counsel’s request for a face-to-face chat, while literally every lawyer and political adviser he has thinks that would be a horrendous idea.
While Trump’s lawyers “have been prepared to tell Mr. Mueller’s office there will be no interview,” reports the New York Times, “Trump pushed them to continue negotiating.” Axios reports that “insiders” expect Trump to get his way, because “Trump wants to, he thinks he can make his own best case, and no one around him can restrain him,” with one associate helpfully adding, “He just can’t help himself.”
Trump is a nightmare client for a defense lawyer. He faces broad legal jeopardy in the Russia investigation — not only for a wide swath of potential crimes relating to collusion with Russia, but also for obstruction of justice. He is a habitual and uncontrollable liar, as even his closest allies grasp. He lies to his own lawyers, as evidenced by the confession of his counsel Jay Sekulow that he had been given “bad information” about Trump’s alleged noninvolvement in crafting a lie about the Trump Tower meeting.
Trump’s attorneys have tried to steer him away from speaking with Mueller by portraying the interview as a “perjury trap,” but the truth is that any interview with Donald Trump is a perjury trap. Trump would perjure himself in an interview about what he ate for lunch.
Trump’s persistent desire to speak with Mueller is one of the true oddities of the long, unfolding scandal. His impulse for maximum confrontation is being overridden by his apparently stronger impulse to keep blabbing to everybody.
Why his lawyers have failed to steer him away from such a risky course of action can only be guessed at. One possible reason is that Trump’s lawyers are simultaneously trying to talk him out of rashly firing Mueller at the very same time they are trying to talk him out of rashly speaking with him. The former requires soothing Trump with promises that Mueller will end his investigation relatively soon — by last Thanksgiving, Ty Cobb was saying a year ago — and will treat him fairly. Presumably, anything they say that discourages Trump from lashing out at Mueller also encourages him in his belief he can charm or bully him into submission. Another possibility is that Trump’s lawyers don’t have a good way of telling him he shouldn’t speak under oath because he is a pathological liar.
Tony Schwartz, who ghost-wrote Trump’s The Art of the Deal and spent hundreds of hours with its putative author, has suggested that in many cases, Trump literally does not know when he lies. That would certainly explain why Trump cannot seem to resist the allure of a situation where his inevitable lies will have unusually serious consequences.
Trump?s Lawyers Can?t Talk Him Out Of Talking to Mueller
^i hope they televise it:chitown:
^
extremely unlikely and bordering on no chance in hell.
Manafort’s Chicago banker allegedly angled to get top jobs at HUD or Treasury
ALEXANDRIA, VA. — Chicago banker Stephen Calk pushed for a top Trump administration spot — as Treasury or Housing and Urban Development secretary — at the same time he was negotiating with Paul Manafort over $16 million in loans, with more revealing testimony about Calk’s ambitions coming Friday in Manafort’s financial crimes trial.
Earlier in the trial of Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, jurors heard testimony from Rick Gates, Manafort’s one-time deputy, that Manafort was promoting Calk to be Army Secretary while negotiating for the loans.
Calk did not get a position in the Trump White House — even as he intervened, according to court testimony on Friday, to rush approvals for two loans totaling $16 million.
Calk is founder and CEO of The Federal Savings Bank, 300 N. Elizabeth St. in Chicago.
Calk has not been called by federal prosecutors as a witness in Manafort’s trial, a curious and unexplained omission, given he was the one who expedited the loans as he was angling for Trump appointments.
On Friday, prosecutors put on the stand Dennis Raico, who worked out of Federal’s Manhattan office from 2015 until last January. Raico testified under a grant of immunity.
MORE https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/pa...tration-trial/
I heard something yesterday that the judge sealed some of Gates testimony because it's relevant to "another investigation".
:)
Sean Hannity turned over his radio show to Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow to undermine the Mueller probe
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...dermine/220968
This is the kind of blatant state media propaganda that we are living with in the US now. Fuking sad state of affairs.
A full blown effort by Trump's lawyers to ridicule Mueller in an effort to solidify the Republican effort to shield Trump from any wrongdoing. No matter what Mueller finds Republicans will stand by him. The only remedy is a Democratic majority in the House.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
Do do you think Hannity should have been prevented from giving his radio show to Sekulow and Giuliani or are you just pointing out your hate for Sekulow,Giuliani and Hannity. If you are advocating preventing Hannity to do as he wishes with his show wouldn’t that be a violation of free speech.