About Us

Northern Piper · 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Manafort is 68 or so. All he has to do is tie this up in an appeal process, whether it is related to a pardon or one of the charges. The appeal will probably outlive him and he knows it.

Other way around:

"So, Paul, you're 68. "

"This thing goes to trial and you're convicted, you're looking at 10, 20 years in the federal pen. Might never see the outside again. Might die of old age in your cell."

"Or, you could share what you know with us, testify as needed, maybe get three years at Club Fed, and you're out at 71 or so."

"Your choice, Paul."

kaylasdad99 · 10-30-2017, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John DiFool

I accidentally laundered two bucks in one of my laundry loads last month. What do I get?

Two bucks.

(Probably crinkled up to where they'll never get accepted by the vending machines at work unless you iron them first.)

Fubaya · 10-30-2017, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scr4

Does that mean paying $10M to get upgraded from jail to house arrest?

Well, he only has to pay $1M and if he doesn't show for court, Dog the Bounty Hunter goes after him.

PatriotX · 10-30-2017, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Other way around:

"So, Paul, you're 68. "

"This thing goes to trial and you're convicted, you're looking at 10, 20 years in the federal pen. Might never see the outside again. Might die of old age in your cell."

"Or, you could share what you know with us, testify as needed, maybe get three years at Club Fed, and you're out at 71 or so."

"Your choice, Paul."

Depending on whose money is being laundered, polonium poisoning might be one of the potential outcomes.

Pippers · 10-30-2017, 09:33 PM

I heard via a friend that six more indictments have been issued today. Can anyone verify that?

running coach · 10-30-2017, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pippers

I heard via a friend that six more indictments have been issued today. Can anyone verify that?

Hotair. Make of it what you will.

Quote:

The floor is open, legal eagles. How much should we infer from the fact that there are four sealed indictments pending in D.C. federal court filed between George Papadopoulos’s document (#182) and the Paul Manafort/Rick Gates indictment (#201-B)?

Pure speculation at this point.

Ca3799 · 10-30-2017, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ludovic

I don't think they get a cut of all condos that were never sold in the first place, so if demand was low, as things tend to be for sketchy overpriced property, it could have helped.

ETA for just orange-licensed properties it could be different if it's only his name.

"Trump’s Russian Laundromat
How to use Trump Tower and other luxury high-rises to clean dirty money, run an international crime syndicate, and propel a failed real estate developer into the White House."

https://newrepublic.com/article/1435...rime-syndicate

BigT · 10-30-2017, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Mace

First of all, don't be so sure isn't still running.

The. Election. Is. Over! She. Literally. Cannot. Be. Running. She can't run for an office that is already filled, and she has not announced that she is running for any other office, and that is the point when we say someone is running for office. Trump didn't run in 2012, even though he did investigate running.

Clinton is not running for any office right now.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I wasn't posting in GD where I actually wanted to know an answer. I was calling these guys idiots for beinging up Clinton. It appeals to their base, who do have that irrational hatred for her. But the rest of us know she is not running, and thus bringing her up is pointless. We can tell that it is obvious spin. So I was calling them stupid for doing it.

Finally, we are very much investigating the Trump campaign and its ties with Russia. There was an argument this wasn't about Trump, but that was ruined the second Trump fired someone to stop the investigation. The two people who we talked about today are both Trump campaign officials.

Make no mistake, we are in fact going after Trump about this. He is the guy who is important, because he is in power. If he colluded, then he is not legitimately president. That's a bit more important than a stupid decades long grudge.

You can't say "But Hillary" forever. The time when that was useful ended on November 8, 2016. That's the end of her relevance. She was already investigated, and that investigation is over.

I do not get why people think talking about Clinton is going to help in any way. It's just transparent spin. The only ones who buy it are the people who would have bought any lie you told, so why not pick one that might actually convince some moderates or anti-Trump conservatives?

asterion · 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT

The. Election. Is. Over! She. Literally. Cannot. Be. Running. She can't run for an office that is already filled, and she has not announced that she is running for any other office, and that is the point when we say someone is running for office. Trump didn't run in 2012, even though he did investigate running.

Clinton is not running for any office right now.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I wasn't posting in GD where I actually wanted to know an answer. I was calling these guys idiots for beinging up Clinton. It appeals to their base, who do have that irrational hatred for her. But the rest of us know she is not running, and thus bringing her up is pointless. We can tell that it is obvious spin. So I was calling them stupid for doing it.

Tell that to the idiots on various liberal websites (I'm thinking of one in particular) that spent all sorts of time coming up with some way to shoehorn Clinton into the Presidency as a result of a Trump impeachment and removal. And if it wasn't Clinton, it was Pelosi.

running coach · 10-31-2017, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion

Tell that to the idiots on various liberal websites (I'm thinking of one in particular) that spent all sorts of time coming up with some way to shoehorn Clinton into the Presidency as a result of a Trump impeachment and removal. And if it wasn't Clinton, it was Pelosi.

Was it an actual legitimate liberal site or some unknown dumbfuck you dug up somewhere?
You could link to it, you know.

JohnT · 12:29 AM

... or, better, if it is an "idiot" site of any stripe, just don't bring the idiocy here. Thoughts?

JohnT · 10-31-2017, 12:36 AM

I'm wondering if the release of the Papodopoulous news means that Mueller got what he needed from him and no longer needs GP as an informant?

asterion · 10-31-2017, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach

Was it an actual legitimate liberal site or some unknown dumbfuck you dug up somewhere?
You could link to it, you know.

I'll give you Markos Moulistas (who is a dumbfuck, but not an unknown one) for his simple-yet-totally-impossible four-step plan to shove Pelosi into the Presidency. It's not really worth finding the one-offs on that site whose random writers showed no understanding of politics, law, or the Constitution in an attempt to shove Clinton in.

The Republicans should give up on Clinton. They won't, because they're desperate to deflect and they don't have anything else. It's been a while since I've seen any real "magical Clinton presidency" thinking, but I won't be surprised if it kicks up again with these initial indictments.

China Guy · 10-31-2017, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion

I'll give you Markos Moulistas (who is a dumbfuck, but not an unknown one) for his simple-yet-totally-impossible four-step plan to shove Pelosi into the Presidency.

How is this "shoving" Pelosi into the presidency? Shoving implying that it's nefarious, underhanded or unconstitutional. Sheesh, it's a fantasy that the Democratic Party wins a majority in the House and Senate at the mid-terms, then Trump and Pence are successfully impeached, thus making Pelosi speaker of the house President. Possible but pretty unlikely.

running coach · 10-31-2017, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion

I'll give you Markos Moulistas (who is a dumbfuck, but not an unknown one) for his simple-yet-totally-impossible four-step plan to shove Pelosi into the Presidency. It's not really worth finding the one-offs on that site whose random writers showed no understanding of politics, law, or the Constitution in an attempt to shove Clinton in.

The Republicans should give up on Clinton. They won't, because they're desperate to deflect and they don't have anything else. It's been a while since I've seen any real "magical Clinton presidency" thinking, but I won't be surprised if it kicks up again with these initial indictments.

What's so stupid about it? Besides the fact it's pretty much impossible, it is a legitimate way to do it. That's the actual order of succession.
The only "if" is whether the Pres. and VP can be impeached simultaneously.

Let's not be too hasty about not knowing the Constitution. Take a look at Trump and tell me with a straight face that knows anything beyond the 2nd. Amendment.

That's one person, you said various liberal sites. Link 'em up. Show it's a prevalent view among liberals in general.

GIGObuster · 10-31-2017, 01:04 AM

In the context it is clear that there was something dumb there, not from Moulistas but from a astorian that found that indeed that article was not about Clinton and had to add Pelosy, that was not mentioned by BigT, just to cover his dumb ass.

asterion · 10-31-2017, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by China Guy

How is this "shoving" Pelosi into the presidency? Shoving implying that it's nefarious, underhanded or unconstitutional. Sheesh, it's a fantasy that the Democratic Party wins a majority in the House and Senate at the mid-terms, then Trump and Pence are successfully impeached, thus making Pelosi speaker of the house President. Possible but pretty unlikely.

Fine, shoving was a poor choice of verb. You're right, if the stars aligned it's exactly the way the process would work and would be totally legitimate. But I think any such Presidency, even with a cooperating Congress, would prove to be very weak (especially since you're likely talking closer to effectively one year) and a likely Republican win in the following election. The idea was bandied about in 2006/2007 as well and was just as bad an idea then.

Fine, you got me. I don't have enough examples that aren't random people on DKos. And I haven't seen much, if any, of it in the last six months. But Clinton still comes up a lot on the left for someone who is pretty much a political non-entity at this point.

asterion · 10-31-2017, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

In the context it is clear that there was something dumb there, not from Moulistas but from a astorian that found that indeed that article was not about Clinton and had to add Pelosy, that was not mentioned by BigT, just to cover his dumb ass.

First, I think astorian should be insulted by the confusion. Second, yes, Pelosi was not mentioned by BigT. I brought her up initially specifically because I had seen several wishful-thinking essays to somehow get either Clinton (usually by somehow forcing her as a replacement VP or by naming her Speaker) or Pelosi into the Presidency. So, when asked, I linked to the owner of DKos instead of one of the random essays on the website, which was for getting Pelosi in.

Nobody's got Clinton derangement like the Republicans. There definitely isn't a whole network of cable and internet sites on the left desperate to deflect by any means necessary from the news like we've seen from the right. But I think there are definitely some on the left who won't let go of trying to get Clinton into the Presidency, either by some wacky impeachment method or by simply running in 2020. It's an obsession that's less helpful than it is for the Republicans because at least the Republicans can reliably fire up their base with the Clinton not-really-a-scandal du jour.

steatopygia · 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion

Fine, shoving was a poor choice of verb. You're right, if the stars aligned it's exactly the way the process would work and would be totally legitimate. But I think any such Presidency, even with a cooperating Congress, would prove to be very weak (especially since you're likely talking closer to effectively one year) and a likely Republican win in the following election. The idea was bandied about in 2006/2007 as well and was just as bad an idea then.

Fine, you got me. I don't have enough examples that aren't random people on DKos. And I haven't seen much, if any, of it in the last six months. But Clinton still comes up a lot on the left for someone who is pretty much a political non-entity at this point.

Not to pile on or anything but I would have to strongly disagree with that last sentence.

The ONLY people talking about Clinton are Trump and the whatabout chorus.

Edit. I see that you addressed that in your next post.

The Democrats are not going to run Clinton again unless literally every other candidate had died. She lost to Trump.

Northern Piper · 10-31-2017, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steatopygia

She lost to Trump.

It is pretty hard to wash that stink off.

Morgyn · 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion

Fine, you got me. I don't have enough examples that aren't random people on DKos. And I haven't seen much, if any, of it in the last six months. But Clinton still comes up a lot on the left for someone who is pretty much a political non-entity at this point.

Amazingly, she comes up even more on the right.

ETA: And I see you addressed that in your next post. That's what I get for not refreshing after having left the tab open on the thread for a few hours!

Aspidistra · 10-31-2017, 04:07 AM

I'm rather shocked to see that the WSJ has gone over to the dark side. I had thought they were a fairly reputable news source. Guess I need to keep better tabs on who's in the Murdoch stable these days. But even by the low, low standards of the Murdoch press, carrying water for the Trump Administration is definitely among their greatest hits. And by "hits" I mean "punches in our collective mouth."

By the way, I'd like to apologise on behalf of my country for that evil bugger. He really is a turd.

ElvisL1ves · 10-31-2017, 05:37 AM

The opinion page of the WSJ has been choleric ever since the Clinton administration, no matter what the news sections may be like.

SteveG1 · 10-31-2017, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

It is pretty hard to wash that stink off.

Exactly. I mean, how the FUCK does someone manage to do that?????

SteveG1 · 10-31-2017, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aspidistra

I'm rather shocked to see that the WSJ has gone over to the dark side. I had thought they were a fairly reputable news source. Guess I need to keep better tabs on who's in the Murdoch stable these days. But even by the low, low standards of the Murdoch press, carrying water for the Trump Administration is definitely among their greatest hits. And by "hits" I mean "punches in our collective mouth."

By the way, I'd like to apologise on behalf of my country for that evil bugger. He really is a turd.

The WSJ has been shit for a while - at least their "opinion" or "editorial" side has been.

ThelmaLou · 10-31-2017, 09:31 AM

I think the reason that Pubs refuse to let the Clinton thing refuse to die is that it's THE ONE thing all Republicans can still unite behind, i.e., hatred of her. When her name is brought up, for an instant they stop tearing at each other's flesh, raise their fists in the air, and shout, "Yeah! Yeah! That bitch! Lock her up!"

Oddly, if Clinton had been elected, the Republicans would be a monolith again, the Great Wall, as it were. Hell, I'll bet Mitch McConnell has feverish and only slightly guilty fantasies about how his power would not have waned but would have gotten stronger during a Clinton presidency. Instead he got the toddler with the hammer who has no fear, no respect, and doesn't care what he tears down.

RTFirefly · 10-31-2017, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion

I'll give you Markos Moulistas (who is a dumbfuck, but not an unknown one) for his simple-yet-totally-impossible four-step plan to shove Pelosi into the Presidency.

Hell, that's recycled from the Bush/Cheney years. I'm sure I posted to that effect here ca. 2006:

1) Retake Congress.
2) Simultaneously impeach Bush and Cheney.
3) President Pelosi!

RTFirefly · 10-31-2017, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion

I'll give you Markos Moulistas (who is a dumbfuck, but not an unknown one) for his simple-yet-totally-impossible four-step plan to shove Pelosi into the Presidency.

Yabbut that's really beside the point. The question is, whether there are a nontrivial number of lefties who keep talking about Clinton at any remotely comparable level to the right-wing obsession with her.

It's coming up on a year since she lost the election. But they still want to lock her up.

My question is, why aren't the "lock her up!" crazies pissed off at Jeff Sessions? He's the AG, so it's his people who could indict her if there were anything she could be charged with. They haven't, and there's no reason to believe they will. But nobody's pissed off at him on account of that, AFAICT.

It's as if they believe Mueller has to be the one to investigate her. Are even Fox News viewers really that dumb?

friedo · 10-31-2017, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveG1

The WSJ has been shit for a while - at least their "opinion" or "editorial" side has been.

Their opinion page has been absolute garbage since the day Murdoch took control. They still do reasonably good journalism tho.

BobLibDem · 10-31-2017, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Are even Fox News viewers really that dumb?

Why yes, they really are.

I think Sessions should start to focus on defense rather than prosecution. I bet he is indicted before all is said and done here, along with Don's entire family save Bannon and Melania.

The pissing and moaning about Hillary and Uranium One is just background noise. It's red meat for the base, but Mueller and Co. have real fish to fry and their nets are filling up fast.

Chronos · 10-31-2017, 10:03 AM

Yes, there's a scenario (albeit probably implausible) where Pelosi becomes President. And there's a much more plausible scenario where she becomes extremely politically relevant again, without becoming President. So Pelosi is certainly a legitimate boogyman for the Right. But what in the world does that have to do with Clinton?

John Mace · 10-31-2017, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT

...You seem to have misunderstood my post....

No, I didn't. Your post was stupid. As was the one I just replied to (and edited most of the stuff out).

ElvisL1ves · 10-31-2017, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Don's entire family save Bannon and Melania.

You mean Barron? Melania's probably clean enough too, but Bannon better have a lawyer.

EddyTeddyFreddy · 10-31-2017, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnT

I'm wondering if the release of the Papodopoulous news means that Mueller got what he needed from him and no longer needs GP as an informant?

More like a one-two punch: Release the Manafort/Gates news, which Trump and co. were expecting, then sucker-punch them with Papadopoulos, which no one saw coming, and which is more powerful since he's already pled guilty and flipped. No wonder Spokestoad Sanders was so desperate to pretend they hardly even knew the guy existed. What did he tell Mueller? How much of the campaign's ties to, contacts with the Russians can he reveal? Has he already revealed? [What's next???

And then I read somewhere there's suggestions of other sealed indictments already been filed....

Oh, the White House and its god-emperor must be one helluva kicked-over anthill now....

friedo · 10-31-2017, 10:45 AM

What's Bannon suspected of? (Besides being an all-around human dumpster fire.)

EddyTeddyFreddy · 10-31-2017, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asterion

But Clinton still comes up a lot on the left for someone who is pretty much a political non-entity at this point.

Most of the time when I see Clinton brought up on the progressive boards I frequent, it's by a few diehard haters to rehash what a horrible candidate/person/neolibcon corrupt scum she is.

ElvisL1ves · 10-31-2017, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by friedo

What's Bannon suspected of? (Besides being an all-around human dumpster fire.)

Close involvement with Trump. No way to keep clean if you do that.

ElvisL1ves · 10-31-2017, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EddyTeddyFreddy

Most of the time when I see Clinton brought up on the progressive boards I frequent, it's by a few diehard haters to rehash what a horrible candidate/person/neolibcon corrupt scum she is.

You see some of that here, too.

friedo · 10-31-2017, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Close involvement with Trump.

We'd have to indict nearly every Republican in Congress, if that's a crime. Seems a bit wasteful and counterproductive.

BobLibDem · 10-31-2017, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

You mean Barron? Melania's probably clean enough too, but Bannon better have a lawyer.

Yes I meant Barron of course. Though Barron may have colluded with others on his homework.

Procrustus · 10-31-2017, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by friedo

We'd have to indict nearly every Republican in Congress, if that's a crime. Seems a bit wasteful and counterproductive.

But what a fun fantasy.

GrandWino · 10-31-2017, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by friedo

What's Bannon suspected of? (Besides being an all-around human dumpster fire.)

He's tied into Cambridge Analytica and the Mercers. Also could have criminal exposure w/ Breitbart depending on how things were run there.

RTFirefly · 10-31-2017, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Barron may have colluded with others on his homework.

I hope the poor kid at least gets some play dates with some of his classmates every now and then, rather than having to go home to the White House every afternoon. It has to be a lonely place for a kid that age.

Tatterdemalion · 10-31-2017, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Close involvement with Trump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by friedo

We'd have to indict nearly every Republican in Congress, if that's a crime. Seems a bit wasteful and counterproductive.

But very satisfying

Northern Piper · 10-31-2017, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Yes I meant Barron of course. Though Barron may have colluded with others on his homework.

I've heard his grades in his Russian language class are suspiciously high.

Just sayin.'

BobLibDem · 10-31-2017, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

I hope the poor kid at least gets some play dates with some of his classmates every now and then, rather than having to go home to the White House every afternoon. It has to be a lonely place for a kid that age.

I feel bad for the kid. Maybe having a celebrity dad prepared him a bit, but being a kid in the White House can't be easy.

PatriotX · 10-31-2017, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnT

I'm wondering if the release of the Papodopoulous news means that Mueller got what he needed from him and no longer needs GP as an informant?

It seems obvious that any un-indicted co-conspirators would at least know they should watch their ps and qs around GP.

So, that doesn't sound like an unreasonable thing to suspect.

Sometimes though, especially at high levels of mastery, things are done which seem counter-intuitive to the layperson.

But as one layperson to another, you're prob'ly right.

BobLibDem · 10-31-2017, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnT

I'm wondering if the release of the Papodopoulous news means that Mueller got what he needed from him and no longer needs GP as an informant?

Great question. There must be a balance between continuing to seal the court matter and using him to entrap the others and going public with it so that those who were in cahoots with him know that their goose is cooked. I can only imagine the horror that those who confided in Papodopolous recently are feeling right now.