Trump's support of Manafort's character could carry weight except for Manafort's own daughter calling him a psychopath in some detail.
Megathread: Super Guilty Tuesday
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
Does not rise nearly to the level of misconduct of selective investigations, ignoring conflicts of interests by FBI leadership, and, now that I think about it, aiding and abetting someone such as Hilary who is under Federal "investigation" by apparently giving her a weeks notice that her computer was going to be looked at. Low and behold, some files had gone missing. Trump's lawyer's office got raided with no notice. They dug something up to charge him with and finally got him to break his attorney client privilege in open court. Are there not FISA issues as well?
I don't know what legal norms are concerning attorney conduct by either side, but the idea of condoning, allowing, or accepting a attorney to violate the fundamental expectation of confidentiality by the client by either side shows politics and self interest overrides everything now.
It used to be that journalists would spend years in jail for contempt rather than reveal their sources identity as was agreed upon in exchange for information. But that was during a time when people put community over themselves. I still remember from history class that one of the reasons our forefathers wanted to form a new country was to get away from Planted evidence from searches, to have the higher legal standard of citizens considered innocent until proven guilty, and have other legal protections in place to protect the people from out of control politicians, law enforcement, and courts.
It is safe to say that crimes were certainly committed by Manfort and Cohen just as it is safe to say that legal protections of the accused and now convicted was also violated. This not only taints these convictions, but this taints our legal system. To say it again, who violated the legal protections of the convicted should face an investigation into their conduct by a truly non partisan team.
Jem (or anyone) . . . . what does ''I violated campaign law for the purpose of influencing election at the direction of the candidate running for federal office mean''?
and who is this person ? . ?
.
.
and who is this person ? . ?
.
.per vanz, Cohen's lawyer on cooperation
http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_bdavis_180821
http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_bdavis_180821
Jem (or anyone) . . . . what does ''I violated campaign law for the purpose of influencing election at the direction of the candidate running for federal office mean''?
and who is this person ? . ?
.
Sorry, you still have not earned your banana. Let me break it down for you: Cohen admitted he violated campaign law. He did not say he knowingly did so, however.
All politicians and their campaign officers try to influence elections. The buy campaign ads. They pay off people to not say damaging things about their candidate. Some of these payoffs are made as a risk management strategy. For example, a prosecutor may offer a plea deal for fear of losing a case. A defendant may seek a plea deal for the same reason. A company may agree to settle a dubious claim rather than risk the negative publicity of a court battle.
"At the direction" can simply mean Cohen had broad authority to act in his client's interests. Do you really think the following conversation between Cohen and Trump took place?:
Trump: "Mr. Cohen, I want you to pay off Stormy Daniels in such a way that violates campaign laws, keeps her cocksucker shut, and that illegally influences the election in my favor.
Cohen: "Brilliiant thinking, sir!" "As your attorney, I am delighted to be working with you!"
"Who is this person", you say? It sounds like he was referring to.. um... Googling... Trump! Yes, that's it! Trump!
I like the way you are at least attempting to think and not just parroting some talk radio line as we sometimes see here. But let's take this one sentence in your comments. This one, from the above quote.
"Hilary who [was] under Federal "investigation" by apparently giving her a weeks notice that her computer was going to be looked at. Low and behold, some files had gone missing. Trump's lawyer's office got raided with no notice."
You have assumed something that I would guess can not be supported by fact. Namely, you seem to be suggesting that Hillary was tipped off that her computer was going to be looked at. Well, that is correct. But what was the form of the tip off. It surely wasn't someone from the FBI calling her and saying we are going to step in and seize your computer. It was the bright and experienced Hillary recognizing that her computer would be examined and taking action to make sure her private files, and perhaps incriminating files too, did not get found on her computer. She acted preemptively and legally. She is a lawyer after all. Cohen on the other hand might have done the same. He is a lawyer too. He knew, or should have known, that the opportunity window to legally get rid of incriminating information is brief. But he did not act. He had plenty of warning that he might come under close scrutiny. But he wasn't the shrewd actor Hillary was. Cohen is not as capable and as knowledgeable as Hillary. I think it is no more complicated than that.
When Hillary's close friend of many years and personal attorney, Vince Foster, committed suicide, she had the keys to his office. Their friendship went back many years. She had the presence of mind and good sense to go to his office as soon as she heard of his death and remove her personal files. If this were to happen to me, or to you, and we had the opportunity, I hope we would do the same.
It is wrong to impugn someone for exercising good judgement. We say that if a person has nothing to hide then there is nothing to worry about. But in the political world that is a childish and naive attitude.
I noticed throughout your narrative that there were assumptions being made that may be true but can just as likely, perhaps even more likely, be untrue. Let us assume nothing, take facts as they are and follow them wherever they may lead.
I did not assume Mr. Trump was a crook. I knew very little about him. But as I observed him campaigning I took it upon myself to learn. As I learned the facts, it was clear to me that he had been involved in money laundering and, almost as certainly, tax evasion. What person who gains money illegally reports it faithfully on his tax returns? And when I observed him to suffer from sever narcissism, I then had the answer to an obvious question. Why would anyone who has involved themselves with illegal activity intentionally call attention to themselves by running for President of the United States?
Also, it soon became clear that the probability of his not knowing that the Russians were heavily involved in trying to influence the election was virtually zero. Furthermore after he was caught lying about the nature of the trump tower meeting it was a virtual certainty he knew of it's true nature. Soon it became equally clear that he had advance knowledge of the meeting, and that he was guilty of the worst imaginable violations of U.S. election law. No person, knowing the facts as they have evolved can reasonably claim him to be innocent; yet he is not yet convicted. He will eventually be of course, unless Mr. Pence decides to Pardon him.
When he jerked Brennan's security clearance, not for cause but for personal animosity toward him, I knew that marked the beginning of the end for Trump. Just as the brilliant Nixon was driven to do horrible things by his paranoia, Mr. Trump is driven to do horrible things by his narcissism.
Mr. Trump's rhetoric is intended to reinforce his followers fears. desires and false beliefs.When someone such as the charismatic, dishonest and bungling, Mr. Trump arrives on the political scene his sincere and altruistic followers believe he speaks the truth. He appears to be a wise and sympathetic leader. He is cleverly manipulating his followers so that he can gain their approval his narcissism causes him to crave. He is not who they think he is. He is instead a charismatic, confident con artist and criminal capable, without remorse, of ruining the lives of those who trust in him. His decisions are bad ones based on lies. Once those around him recognize his deficiencies, they ignore him when they can and humor him when hey can't. He surrounds himself with flatterers, loyalty being the chief criterion for selection. Nevertheless, many in his administration are competent. They are able to limit and ameliorate the extent of the disasters his decisions cause. The inertia of our government is enough to keep the Ship of State from capsizing. Then too, there are those who support him who understand full well his illness, his methods, and his limitations. They support him for purely selfish reasons.
Last edited:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will respond to this post in a bit.
stormy daniels and michael avdnatti are the new brain trust for the democratic party
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight buddy. To catch a low life you level the field and bring in the bottom feeders. Nice try!