Straight Dope Message Board

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Sure, I suppose that's an argument. I guess it would require determining the fair market value of the publicity the dossier gained for the campaign and then ensuring that the payment was on a general par with that value, though -- wouldn't it?

That would be an odd way of doing it.

The determination of whether something is an arms-length commercial transaction does not ordinarily require that the value to the buyer equal the price. If it did, almost nothing would meet that test, since most people try to get something that is worth more than what they paid for it.

To use that test in the context of valuing publicity would be even more bizarre, since it is largely unforeseeable and worth nothing to the seller. 51

[scr4]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Sure, I suppose that's an argument. I guess it would require determining the fair market value of the publicity the dossier gained for the campaign and then ensuring that the payment was on a general par with that value, though -- wouldn't it?

That's not just "an argument," that's the fundamental difference. If you pay me to do work for you, I'm not giving you a gift. If I do work for you for free, then I'm giving you a gift. Completely different situation.

As for the value, why would the payment be dependent on the value of publicity? I would think an investigator would get paid based on hours spent on the task. 52

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by asahi

Mueller's not going to touch Kushner now - absolutely not. If he does that, the investigation ends.

Why does it end? 53

[asahi]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Why does it end?

Because Trump and his supporters in congress will end it. 54

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by asahi

Because Trump and his supporters in congress will end it.

Why? 55

[Lance Turbo]

Fiveyearlurker said it earlier but I'll say it again...

Felix Sater.

1) He is up to so much shady shit that it's just not too hard to find a crime when you look closely at his activities.
2) He has a history of helping out the feds to avoid prosecution.
3) A couple of months ago he was telling people that he was probably going to jail over Trump/Russia stuff. 56

[elucidator]

"Because Trump and his supporters in congress will end it."

"Why?"

Because Trump fires Mueller at that point? Publicly bewailing assaults on his family. I mean, attacking somebody's family, have they no decency! It'll sell. 57

[Aspenglow]

More and more, I think it will be someone big enough and close enough to the facts to rattle Trump, but not someone fundamental to the investigation. So not Kushner, not Ivanka, not Flynn Sr., not Roger Stone, not Carter Page, not Mike Pence, not Michael Cohen, not Felix Sater.

I do think Mueller is hoping to provoke a response, learn Trump's "strategy," if Trump will actually fire him and if he does, what the Congressional response will be. If the leak did originate from Mueller's office, then I think it was strategic to leak it on the eve of another golf weekend in Virginia and gauge how bad it spooked Trump. (Happy Halloween!) As noted in other threads, considerably, it would appear. ("DO SOMETHING!")

Donald Jr. is a good guess as offered by purplehearingaid, but was Jr. in fact formally affiliated with the Trump campaign? His role in organizing the Veselnitskaya meeting was pivotal, but he's not the only person who could provide testimony about it. Still he might be exactly the sacrificial lamb Mueller wants if he was in fact a member of the campaign. Mueller will keep politics out of it -- but he will also be very strategic.

I don't think the investigation ends even if Trump fires Mueller. First, Trump can't fire Mueller. He has to find someone to do it. I don't think Rosenstein will do it. Trump can fire Rosenstein, but it's another obstruction charge if he does. If he goes down the chain a la Bork, sure, he'll find someone to fire Mueller. But every Congressperson I've heard speak on the issue -- including every Republican -- has indicated that impeachment proceedings would begin tout suite if that happens. Alternatively, Congress could simply reauthorize Mueller under new, fire-proof authority.

I don't believe Congress is entirely in the bag for Trump. I remember the numbers from their vote on sanctions against Russia: Practically unanimous. They are all very aware of Russian interference in our election. A lot of them would be happier with a President Pence or President Ryan when all is said and done. They just don't want to be the ones to instigate impeachment. (Cowards.)

And then let the prosecutions unfold. If Trump supporters are going to rise up, let them. It's going to happen sooner or later if it's going to happen at all. Let's get on with it. 58

[Defensive Indifference]

On Predictit, on the question, "Will a federal criminal charge be filed against Roger Stone in 2017", the "Yes" position went up 32 cents today. Not sure how much stock to put in that. 59

[Fiveyearlurker]

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on witness flipping, but wouldn't bringing in more than one person at the same time encourage cooperation? Best deal goes to the first to talk? 60

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on witness flipping, but wouldn't bringing in more than one person at the same time encourage cooperation? Best deal goes to the first to talk?

Their attorneys have most likely been negotiating for such a deal for some time now. They know who is going to get indicted. 61

[RTFirefly]

Sater or Flynn Jr.

The indictment is supposedly sealed until Monday so that the indictees can be picked up on Monday.

My question is, why can't this guy/these guys be picked up over the weekend? What's the deal on that? Why must they wait until 'regular business hours'? 62

[elucidator]

Maybe they just wanted a weekend off before the trajectory of the shit intersects the locus of the fan. At least for a couple of days, they can legit refuse to talk about it, come Monday that gets shot to blazes. They'll be lucky if they can stop talking long enough to chew. 63

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Sater or Flynn Jr.

The indictment is supposedly sealed until Monday so that the indictees can be picked up on Monday.

My question is, why can't this guy/these guys be picked up over the weekend? What's the deal on that? Why must they wait until 'regular business hours'?

They needn't. They could execute their arrest at any time/date of their choosing. But according to my recent understanding, there are strategic reasons other than surprise to seal an indictment ahead of an arrest.

In some cases it can be a courtesy to the defendant, allowing them the dignity of putting their affairs in order and to avoid The Perp Walk. It might be because they are not yet ready to arrest, but they needed to indict based on statute of limitations concerns. It might also be to do exactly what it appears to be doing: Stress some of the potential targets into cooperating and/or showing their hand(s). 64

[elucidator]

But I agree that Flynn is the most likely. Reasoning that building a case that Trump interfered with Comey is strengthened by a strong and public case against Flynn. If Flynn is found guilty and/or cops a plea, the situation solidifies, he actually is guilty of something, and an effort to deter that outcome becomes more clearly wrong. 65

[Fiveyearlurker]

I'm going with Manafort, and if it can be proven that Manafort colluded with Russia, then the whole campaign colluded with Russia. There was no reason to hire Manafort as campaign manager except to collude with Russia. What rational reason was there for him to manage a presidential campaign? His access to Russian money was his only selling point.

And, remember on the day he left the campaign, Trump associated businesses "loaned" him 13 million dollars.

"In September, Summerbreeze received a $3.5 million loan from Spruce Capital. The investment firm’s co-founder Joshua Crane helped develop Trump International Hotel & Tower in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 2006. Then, in November, the firm secured a $9.5 million loan from the Federal Savings Bank of Chicago, founded and chaired by Stephen M. Calk, a senior economic adviser to Trump during his campaign. The bank usually specializes in loans to help military veterans buy homes." 66

[JohnT]

I'm going out on a limb here and say it is Monday for the simple reason of that's when the courts are open. Having Flynn/Manafort/??? sit the entire weekend in jail does nothing to help Mueller and makes a Friday night arrest look vengeful, especially in a case *this* public.

Monday, you can be arrested, met at courthouse by your attorney, and begin the process of being arraigned and posting bail ASAP, with a minimum of jail time.

I would also like to say the likelihood of nothing happening Monday is higher than many give credence. 67

[Fiveyearlurker]

it's like Christmas eve and looking at all those presents under the tree trying to guess what's inside. 68

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by elucidator

But I agree that Flynn is the most likely.

Best Facebook idea: If you want to be a prick, go to Flynn's house at 6 AM Monday and pound on his door. 69

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Lance Turbo

Fiveyearlurker said it earlier but I'll say it again...

Felix Sater.

1) He is up to so much shady shit that it's just not too hard to find a crime when you look closely at his activities.
2) He has a history of helping out the feds to avoid prosecution.
3) A couple of months ago he was telling people that he was probably going to jail over Trump/Russia stuff.

Good guess, but I think it likely that old Felix has flipped already. 70

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Sure, I suppose that's an argument. I guess it would require determining the fair market value of the publicity the dossier gained for the campaign and then ensuring that the payment was on a general par with that value, though -- wouldn't it?

If someone's in the job of doing investigations, with a regular fee ("$100 a day, plus expenses"), what does it matter what the benefit of the material dug up is? If someone hires a detective and they come up with nothing, but get the paid the same as if they hand over a silver bullet, where's the contribution? They're getting paid for their services. How valuable, politically, their product may be, isn't really relevant, I would have thought. They got hired, they did the job, they get paid, and they move on to the next job. 71

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

If someone's in the job of doing investigations, with a regular fee ("$100 a day, plus expenses"), what does it matter what the benefit of the material dug up is? If someone hires a detective and they come up with nothing, but get the paid the same as if they hand over a silver bullet, where's the contribution? They're getting paid for their services. How valuable, politically, their product may be, isn't really relevant, I would have thought. They got hired, they did the job, they get paid, and they move on to the next job.

Yeah, makes sense -- I was picturing more the argument that the only investigations work the subject did was for the campaign, as opposed to having a regular gig. I agree if he's doing similar work for similar clients, then he's safe.

Of course, I think he's safe anyway based on the First Amendment argument. 72

[Northern Piper]

So if the next time I'm travelling in the States, I attend a political conference, and overwhelmed by the oratory, I make a contribution to the candidate, you'll come defend me, right? 73

[guizot]

Originally Posted by JohnT

I would also like to say the likelihood of nothing happening Monday is higher than many give credence.

Schiff has just said that someone "is 'likely' to face indictment as early as [tomorrow]," either Manafort or Flynn, for what it's worth. 74

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by guizot

Schiff has just said that someone "is 'likely' to face indictment as early as [tomorrow]" -- for what it's worth.

From that link (bold added):

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said a federal judge could unseal an indictment against either Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, or Michael Flynn, who briefly served as Trump’s national security advisor in the White House.

75

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Yes. Thanks for the answer and the correction of the question. That is exactly what I was thinking.

So, no state charges here. That is not to say that the states can't start their own investigations if they are so inclined.

The New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman is conducting a parallel investigation into Trump and his associates because a lot of Trump's properties and financial transactions occurred in NY state. 76

[Euphonious Polemic]

I'm going to go with Manafort. He's been under investigation for years, even before he joined Trump's team. He was hired by Trump BECAUSE of his collusion with the Russians.

As for Flynn? I think he's singing like a little bird already, and won't be charged, as long as he cooperates. 77

[China Guy]

I think you start at the perimeter and work your way in. Mueller obviously needs to avoid going too high, too early and not having his ducks in a row.

Call me cynical, but maybe the power brokers (if such a thing truly exists) will get their shit together. If there is enough provable evidence against Trump and family, a deal just might happen for a medical "retirement" in exchange for keeping his family out of jail. And maybe in such a fantasy, Pence is also an indictable target, and we end up with a deal that puts President Ryan in the White House. I'm not saying this is a great scenario, and would love to see The Donald and Family get their just deserts (if the case is proven in a court of law). On the other hand, taking his finger off the button and passing the torch to someone I loathe like Ryan as a placeholder until 2020, is a deal that I could grudgingly swallow. Even better if power brokers agree the next supreme nomination is Garland. Dunno about this hypothetical but versus the risk of the Trumpster going completely off the deep end and his 30% incited to arms.... 78

[Fubaya]

It's breaking that Manafort has been told to surrender to the feds.

Edit: and his business partner Rick Gates 79

[JohnT]

It's Manafort and Rick Gates 80

[asterion]

Interesting. Manafort has been up to plenty of shady stuff that didn't potentially involve the Trump administration. Will this be the start of going up the chain or more of a tangential indictment? 81

[BobLibDem]

The easy favorite came through, though if you had any money on Mr. Gates (first you had to have heard of him), you're doing pretty good.

It's Mueller Time! Fun little video, the special effects aren't spectacular but quite amusing nonetheless. 82

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by JohnT

It's Manafort and Rick Gates

And simultaneously, "US warns of N Korean 'provocations' as it sends bombers, carriers to region."

...Meanwhile, the US has been making other moves of the kind that have provoked responses from Pyongyang in the past. Last week, two more US aircraft carriers joined the Japan-based USS Ronald Reagan in the Asia-Pacific region.
...
But Lt Gen Kenneth McKenzie Jr, director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters last week the three carrier groups would conduct a joint exercise to demonstrate their "unique and powerful capability," the first time that's happened in the Pacific in a decade. ....

So, Trump's not going to derail the investigation by firing Mueller--he's going to do it by starting WWIII?? 83

[RTFirefly]

I wasn't expecting it to be Manafort, but there have been many times in my life when I've been happy to be wrong, and this is one of them. 84

[friedo]

Unsealed indictment (PDF) against Manafort and Gates. Should make for some dry breakfast reading. 85

[Ravenman]

It claims that Manafort illegally received more than $18 million in laundered funds. 86

[Chronos]

But really, who has't laundered millions of dollars at some point in their lives? 87

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

It claims that Manafort illegally received more than $18 million in laundered funds.

That's amateur hour. Surely Donald has done more than that in a good week. 88

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

It claims that Manafort illegally received more than $18 million in laundered funds.

Related to the campaign, or otherwise? 89

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

I wasn't expecting it to be Manafort, but there have been many times in my life when I've been happy to be wrong, and this is one of them.

So, you're enjoying some relish on your "nothing burger"? 90

[wonky]

Sorry for crossposting, but this is a good, quick rundown of the charges: https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/...91226008489984 91

[Richard Parker]

So Manafort was an undisclosed agent for pro-Russian interests attempting to influence US politics and secretly on their payroll when he ran Trump's campaign.

But this has nothing to do with Russia's efforts to help Trump win the U.S. election.

Is that about right? 92

[El_Kabong]

So, see? Trump was right! There WAS no collusion with Russia! Fake News!








It was Ukraine. 93

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by John Mace

So, you're enjoying some relish on your "nothing burger"?

Get the nothingburger combo, it's a better deal.

GOP apologists will be dancing in the streets, this particular indictment doesn't seem to be campaign related. I'm sure this is the first of many indictments to many people, some of which will be campaign related and some of which will not. 94

[Lord Feldon]

There's another one.

On October 5th, George Papadopolous pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI. 95

[Richard Parker]

Link: https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...nt-Offense.pdf 96

[Fiveyearlurker]

Yeah. We still saying nothingburger? 97

[JohnT]

Well, they didn't get Al Capone on booze running, either. 98

[Happy Lendervedder]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

There's another one.

On October 5th, George Papadopolous pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI.

Wait, Webster's dad? I don't believe it! I don't want to believe it! That poor little Webster's already been through so much. 99

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

There's another one.

On October 5th, George Papadopolous pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI.

Specifically he lied about, and has now confirmed, that the Trump campaign tried to collude with Russia wrt the hacked emails. 100