Yes, stand by and I’ll find the craigslist posts. It may be a while; I’m at work.
As far as why the MSM isn’t all over this - they’ve continued to chase bullshit shiny buttery males and miss the forest for the trees. It seems there may be some momentum growing on this topic; I hope to see more light shed soon.
A couple of interesting stories about Rudy that I’ll just drop in here; not worth their own threads.
First, this one, arguing that Rudy is more of a liability than a help to Trump:
Rudy Giuliani has turned out to be a dangerous liability for Trump
After mention that Rudy himself had revealed that the NY Times was investigating the allegation of a pre-meeting before the Trump Tower meeting with Russians, putting it squarely into the media storms, and the fact that Rudy had actually tied Trump closer to the allegations about Stormy Daniels, the article comments:
And then this article, by a retired lawyer from the Southern District of New York US Attorney’s office, which Rudy used to head up in the 1980’s: My Mentor Rudy Giuliani Is Unrecognizable to Me:
Not related to Rudy, this article is more about substantive law: Federal judge rejects Manafort’s challenge to Mueller’s appointment.
As questions swirl over Trump interview, judge guts potential defense strategy
Here’s an article from May about the phenomenon: The 'hire a crowd' business operates openly and makes journalism even more difficult - Poynter
Here’s a Twitter thread from a writer and information security guy who has been following the story: https://twitter.com/IdeaGov/status/1025035731083743232
And people ask me if I am happy about being dubious about everything.
No, but it prepares me for this sort of crap.
Rick Gates took the stand a few minutes ago.
Prosecutor Uzo Asonye walked Gates through some biographical information and his background with Paul Manafort. Gates said that he met Manafort while he was an intern with one of Manafort’s former firms. However, he didn’t work with Manafort directly until he started working at Davis Manafort Partners in October 2006.
Asonye asked, “Were you involved in any criminal activity with Mr. Manafort?”
To which Gates answered, “Yes”.
“Did you commit any crimes with Mr. Manafort?” Asonye said.
“Yes,” Gates answered.
Say what you will about being a pessimist, but at least you’re rarely disappointed.
All right! Now we’re gettin’ somewhere!
It would be interesting to see what you could get away with on a sign. Perhaps an appropriate biblical chapter and verse. I’m thinking “Leviticus 19:11”.
It’s not merely a rumor that Trump hired people to cheer at his 2015 candidacy announcement:
The Washington Post and other pay-walled sources carried this same story, by the way.
As for more recent rallies: I’d guess that there are reporters looking into it. Undeniably Trump has more actual fans today than he did on June 15, 2015----because he hadn’t yet come out as a racist. But his June 16, 2015 remarks about Mexicans (“they’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime…”) put him on the path to filling arenas.
It’s his actions since that may be causing a change from arenas to high school gymnasiums. And possibly even a change to having to offer cash for cheers.
If staff/organizers are paying people to come and cheer. I wonder if Trump would even know?
I’m not giving him excuses, but I wouldn’t be surprised if his rally organizers would do it to prevent Trumps wrath.
When I was a professional extra/audience member, I did a lot of late night talk shows and game shows and such. We were there to fill the studio when they couldn’t get enough people to come in and watch for free.
One particular instance comes to mind on the Kilborn show (remember him?) when he taped two shows in a row. They usually shuffle out the ticket holders with fresh ones between shows, but they still didn’t have a full house, so we (the paid people) got back in. At the beginning of each show he would come out and tell some jokes (always the same jokes) to the audience and then some idle chat. The first show the guest was Rob Zombie. At the beginning of the 2nd show he did his stupid jokes, then ask the audience what their favorite guest was and my buddy (also paid) yelled out “Rob Zombie!” Craig was obviously embarrassed and silently outraged that he told the same stupid jokes to an audience who had already heard them. It seemed very apparent that he had no clue that some people were being paid to be there. So I can see that Trump might not know either. Which really wouldn’t surprise me what with all his other cluelessnesses (that’s a word, right?)
Phrase of the week: “perjury trap”.
Consider the following: Fox host asks how Trump is supposed to talk to Mueller if he can’t lie
How indeed could he escape the dastardly perjury trap Mueller has set for him?
Hey now, that’s just crazy talk.
Our good friend Newt is also saying it would be “unwise” for the President to “walk into a perjury trap” (see the last 10-15 seconds of this clip). Why is it that even Republicans are assuming Trump can’t avoid lying under oath?
And why is it totally acceptable to them?? (It’s a rhetorical question. I know why, and shame on them.)
The Republican perjury trap meme kills me. So easy to avoid: Tell the truth.
Based on recent news about how hard Trump and his lawyers are fighting it and Trump’s general amping up in Crazy Town, I think Mueller has given them a hard deadline for the interview.
Giuliani keeps banging on about how Mueller can’t subpoena Trump, so I also surmise that Mueller has said he will issue a subpoena if Trump doesn’t agree to the interview.
In all fairness, the big question is tell the truth about what? Any question you’re asked? I wouldn’t agree to be asked questions under oath about anything.
Ex. of non-relevant to Russia perjury trap:
Did Stormy/any girl do x, y, z with you? - if she did, and you say no, then that’s perjury. I don’t think that question is relevant though and I certainly wouldn’t want my wife/family/friends to know about it, even though telling the truth would not lead to any perjury. Think Bill Clinton’s bj.
Ex. of “relevant” to Russia perjury trap:
Did you meet with Russian person X in 2016? - if you did, and lie about it, that’s perjury. Now, the prosecutor has solid evidence you met with Russian person X, but the prosecutor also knows Russian person X has nothing to do with collusion and the meeting was harmless and legal - he just happened to be a Russian. But the prosecutor knows the optics are bad and Trump might not know it was legal and wants you to deny it. Perjury.
So it depends on the scope of what Mueller is allowed to ask. Mueller clearly would want a broad scope, Trump would clearly want it very limited. It’s not unreasonable to have it limited of course, but to what degree. I don’t have any idea about how broad of topics Mueller is wanting to ask questions about (not that I should know that or that Mueller should inform the public of that) - but I assume it’s just about Russian collusion. The reality is, his mandate is very broad and can extend past Russian collusion. ex. Manafort/Gates tax evasion/bank fraud charges.
I think team Trump is now telling Mueller he should not be allowed to ask about obstruction of justice. That seems relevant to Russian collusion (obstruction is in Mueller’s mandate) and there seems to be enough public evidence of Trump attempting to obstruct to support fleshing it out (not a perjury trap).
Sorry, but this doesn’t fly for me. Perjury is perjury, and that’s the end of it.
If you find yourself on the business end of a private interview with the FBI and/or a grand jury subpoena, then the only way to avoid a “perjury trap” is to be completely honest about any and every question you are asked. It’s really not hard, though it may be very uncomfortable. As you say, witness Bill Clinton’s blow job.
Were I in a similar situation and the interviewer asked what I thought was an irrelevant question, I would ask for a consultation with my attorney – because I’d agree to a private interview over a subpoena by the grand jury any day. If there was no legal way to avoid answering the question, I would weigh the outcome of a potential perjury conviction against the discomfort of my husband/family/friends finding out about my shitty behavior… and I would tell the truth.
If the meeting with a Russian was perfectly legal, then what impetus to lie about it? You say it might look bad. Probably not as bad as a perjury conviction.
This is a hard, bright line for a reason. Where should one draw the line about how much lying is acceptable before one enters “perjury trap” territory?
Also wanted to add that I believe Mueller has already rejected Giuliani’s (feeble IMHO) attempt to limit Mueller’s questioning to only obstruction.
To be clear, my point is just to add some color to the phrase “perjury trap.” It’s a real “tool” prosecutors can/do use (albeit not too much) and I’m simplifying that any lying is perjury (which is not true, has to be a material lie).
The trap is just having you answer questions under oath without set limitations. So you’d want to set all the “relevant” limitations before raising your hand to take the oath - not after.
re: obstruction. Mueller wants to ask about it, Trump doesn’t want to answer those questions - Trump only wants to answer specific Russian collusion questions, but not about obstructing the investigation into those Russian collusion crimes. Why? (besides the obvious) I think team Trump believes a President cannot commit the crime of obstruction of justice. If that is true, then team Trump would not agree to topics that are legal to do (like the Russian X person in my example above) because there’s no upside (it’s legal - leave it at that, answering the questions could only lead to a new crime - perjury).
Personally, I of course think he should have to answer questions of obstructing the investigations into Russian interference in our 2016 elections because it’s becoming clear that he did. Whether that’s a crime or not, I’ll let a court decide.
Mostly, I just want to know. Want to see the twenty-seven 8-by-10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence. That will convince everyone who can be convinced. As for the rest, we’ll just have to put up with them. Og help us.
There’s no question that a vigorous defense attorney will do all he/she can to limit the scope of an interview with his/her client. With this in mind, Mueller has bent over backwards to accommodate Giuliani’s crazy requests. But it’s a bit of a pleasant fiction for Giuliani to even pretend he’s got the power of negotiation here. Most defendants are simply arrested and interviewed, or subpoenaed and brought before a grand jury. No limited scope of inquiry whatsoever.
Obviously out of respect for the office as well as the fact that indicting/subpoenaing a president is… well… different, Mueller is kid-gloving the situation. He’s also eliminating any potential defense to a future subpoena that Mueller didn’t give Trump every opportunity to avoid a subpoena.
In the end, though, I think if Mueller issues a subpoena, the courts – including even this Supreme Court – will find that Trump must comply. If it goes that way, Trump loses his right to have his attorney present in front of a grand jury, as well as any ability to limit the scope of the questioning in any way.
Given that the witness under oath in front of that grand jury will be Trump, I can see how he views it as a “perjury trap.” With a compulsive liar, it can’t be anything else.
Wait, what? Never heard that before. It would surely look like an unfair persecution to the Trumplumps. Hell, my darkly suspicious nature suggests they might be playing for exactly that!