Former Trump campaign adviser 'almost certainly' has 'flipped'
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
^^^^^
Yes, and at this point the sole role of the NY State AG office is to hand over the information and get out of the way.
Yes, and at this point the sole role of the NY State AG office is to hand over the information and get out of the way.
Multiple news reports say thats exactly whats happening,including Fox News.Its true Feds generally want the state to step out of the way when the federal government brings a case but most federal cases don't have a president who might possibly obstruct their case as Trump has proven he is willing to do.This also isn't a regular federal case,its a special council investigation,normal procedure doesn't always apply.
Schneiderman and Trump have history,they hate each other.Schneiderman is the one who went after Trump university,he went after Trump for The Florida bribery thing and has been investigating other Trump business activities.I'd say its unlikely he will voluntarily get out of the way if he can help take Trump down.
We will wait and see how the entire thing actually plays out. I think the Manafort case covering pre-Trump activity in the Ukraine for the most part is meaningless in terms of harming Trump and his associates. IMO George Papadopoulos' guilty plea and cooperation in regards to Trump campaign related activity will have far more impact on Trump and his associates.
I agree,if he doesn't flip.If Manafort flips he probably does far more damage than Papadopoulos flipping imo.
Alright, but it gets more complicated than that and although I am aware of most of the issues, I am not going to argue them here. Part of the issue is that there have been "special counsel laws" in effect off and on that defined how they can be appointed and then they lapse and are not renewed which changes the game. I think that is one of the problems with Holder, that the special counsel law had expired so that only the AG could appoint a special counsel.
The other thing that complicates it is that- even though the special counsel act as expired- congress can still request that the AG appoint a special counsel which means it is initiated by congress but still technically appointed by the AG.
I don't think it is barred by separation of powers. I think it is more of an issue of the enabling legislation having expired. And when it was in effect it gave congress the power to request the attorney general to appoint a special counsel although the particular person was up to the AG.
So in theory they could re-enact that legislation if the AG did not respond to a simple request to do so.
"Either the attorney general or Congress could appoint a special counsel, said William Banks, a professor and the founding director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University"
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-special-prosecutor-counsel-trump-russia-james-comey-2017-5
"Almost certainly" is certainly enough for the left to distribute as fact. Meanwhile, Donna provides actual evidence of election rigging in the dem primary and the left pretends nothing to see here. Typical.
Quite so.
The dems will argue that there are a lot of irregularities but no smoking guns. I don't necessarily agree with that. There are some pretty hefty game-changing admissions there, and possibly some clear violations of campaign funding by laundering money from the states.
Doesn't really matter to me though because -in my humble opinion- the biggest problem is that the dems and the dnc have now is simply that they have become dumpy. Debbie was dumpy and crooked, and Donna was dumpy and crooked, and Hillary is dumpy and crooked. And Bernie is more zippy but he mostly takes any energy in the party outside the party over to his party-to-be.
So the dnc was already in financial trouble before the last election. That's how Hillary ended out buying it. But she and her dollars are gone now. And their financial status is wayyy down in the toilet and not much in the way of donations coming in. So that is where dumpy becomes lethal. There are lots of dems who may make weak points like the roboposters here and argue that no crimes occurred at the dnc and everything was overstated BUT NOT ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO DONATE TO THE DNC EVEN IF THEY DONATED BEFORE. THERE ARE PLENTY WHO MAY DONATE DIRECTLY TO A CANDIDATE NOW BUT THEY ARE ALL SAYING "HEY, I AM JUST NOT GOING TO DO DUMPY AGAIN RIGHT NOW."
I could be totally wrong, but you know what, I could be totally right too.
We will check back on the fundraising again at some point. Oh, and not to forget, midterms coming right up. Might be good to be able to put gas in the van that drives volunteers around to hand out free cigarettes if you register.Y'all may recall those endless charts and graphs that libtards used to post in the early days of the election campaign showing how the dems were outraising the republicans three to one or whatever and that they already had candidate waiting to be coronated and the republicans did not have any candidates. Then they complained that they had too many candidates and too much money from Trump. Whatever. It's all good if you have a sip of kool aid.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...atic-partys-looming-fundraising-crisis-215474
Last edited: