• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Dangers of a Trump Presidency--Part 7

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
42,869
Ratings
28,140
I'm not sure if this got posted.

March 8, 2018
Five Days After Trump Lawyer Paid Adult Film Star $130,000, Trump Org Billed Trump Campaign $129,999.72
The seemingly strange coincidence is raising flags amid questions of Trump's possible involvement in the payout.

Nathan Francis
https://www.inquisitr.com/4819278/f...0k-trump-org-billed-trump-campaign-129999-72/
I have not read the article yet, but just the first glance at the numbers suggests (to me) that there was an intent to hide the amount. This couldn't have happened without Trump's knowledge since he considers himself an expert in everything.
 
Messages
56
Ratings
68
I have not read the article yet, but just the first glance at the numbers suggests (to me) that there was an intent to hide the amount. This couldn't have happened without Trump's knowledge since he considers himself an expert in everything.
I was waiting for something like this to come out. This whole administration is a bunch of clowns.
 

BittyBug

And the band played on
Messages
19,997
Ratings
15,142
As much as I'd love the two issues to be tied, two of the charges have a reference for an AMEX charge number which suggests a direct reimbursement for a credit card charge. Of course, the reference number could be fabricated, but considering that is an obvious item to be audited and campaign finances are audited fairly thoroughly, it seems pretty risky to try to falsely pass of an expense as a credit card charge.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,434
Ratings
11,010
As much as I'd love the two issues to be tied, two of the charges have a reference for an AMEX charge number which suggests a direct reimbursement for a credit card charge. Of course, the reference number could be fabricated, but considering that is an obvious item to be audited and campaign finances are audited fairly thoroughly, it seems pretty risky to try to falsely pass of an expense as a credit card charge.
I know nothing about finances and I've had my doubts about the $129,999.72 since I read about it (it's a weird amount but seems too good to be true) but news outlets did say that sources had said that Cohen was under suspicion of campaign finance violations and bank fraud. So, who knows.
 

once_upon

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,831
Ratings
14,714
The solicitor general is looking to make the SEC case before the Supreme Court about the President's general hiring and firing power. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-trump-fire-20180415-story.html

Somebody please tell me that it's going to be okay. :fragile:
If people like Grassley (a snake who is evil like Ryan and McConnell) are saying it is a very bad action to take and he does do that, I have to believe Congress might have to act.

Grassley represents a state, Iowa, whose main industry - farming is going to have severe economic consequences of Trump's tariff actions.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,434
Ratings
11,010
If people like Grassley (a snake who is evil like Ryan and McConnell) are saying it is a very bad action to take and he does do that, I have to believe Congress might have to act.
I'm afraid that if the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of the broad hiring and firing power of the President that the solicitor general is looking for then Republicans will be very happy to use that as an excuse not to do anything. Many probably want Trump to go away but they don't want the responsibility and a ruling like that would probably be a welcome excuse. It would also put Trump above the law since he will fire everyone he doesn't like without action from Congress.

I do believe that there are some Justices who are very aware of the consequences. Maybe even all of them. But I fear that the majority will dismiss the dangers and/or ignore them.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,434
Ratings
11,010
https://www.ft.com/content/9eb4b616-3f61-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4

US banks have finally reopened the lending taps to corporate America, expanding their loan books at the fastest pace since Donald Trump’s election resulted in a lengthy credit stagnation. While the industry data published on Friday reflect only one month of recovery, bankers said they were an encouraging sign and predicted a more sustained pick up as US business gets more comfortable about taking on more debt.

Just what the country needs :scream:
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,197
Ratings
4,827
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/06/us/judge-withdraws-from-clinton-list-for-justice-post.html

Has anyone else noticed that the judge in the Michael Cohen "was the FBI office raid legal?" case is Judge Kimba M. Wood?

https://forward.com/fast-forward/39...dge-on-michael-cohens-case-celebrated-a-bris/

Remember a time when a woman was considered unfit to be attorney general of the US because she hired an illegal immigrant as a baby sitter before it was illegal to do so?

That was 1993, the Clinton presidency.

The woman was Judge Kimba M. Wood.
 

once_upon

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,831
Ratings
14,714
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/06/us/judge-withdraws-from-clinton-list-for-justice-post.html

Has anyone else noticed that the judge in the Michael Cohen "was the FBI office raid legal?" case is Judge Kimba M. Wood?

https://forward.com/fast-forward/39...dge-on-michael-cohens-case-celebrated-a-bris/

Remember a time when a woman was considered unfit to be attorney general of the US because she hired an illegal immigrant as a baby sitter before it was illegal to do so?

That was 1993, the Clinton presidency.

The woman was Judge Kimba M. Wood.
What implications do you see from this?
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,197
Ratings
4,827
What implications do you see from this?
I don't know, but it is interesting.

Perhaps that she is very qualified; and given her actions about the lawyer who needed to attend the bris, that she sounds like a reasonable person with a sense of humor.

I suspect, whatever she decides, she will not be overruled on appeal.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,197
Ratings
4,827
.

Here's the bris story:

In 2010, Woods gave a Jewish defense attorney the day off from court on the day his third grandson was born so that he could attend the bris.

Bennett Epstein announced the birth of the child with aplomb: “Judge, I have an announcement to make: Hoo hah!” he said in court.

Epstein asked for the day off if the child were a boy, but if she were a girl, there would be no bris to attend. So Wood cut him a deal.

“If a daughter is born,” Wood wrote, “there will be a public celebration in Court, with readings from poetry celebrating girls and women.”

But the celebration was not required. Epstein called Wood “a terrific judge, a wonderful person with a great sense of humor.”
I bet Alex Jones seizes on this though:
Wood also officiated at a non-denominational wedding service for billionaire George Soros in 2013.
 
Last edited:

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,434
Ratings
11,010
I don't know, but it is interesting.

Perhaps that she is very qualified; and given her actions about the lawyer who needed to attend the bris, that she sounds like a reasonable person with a sense of humor.

I suspect, whatever she decides, she will not be overruled on appeal.
Considering what is at stake that must not necessarily be a good thing.

She also gave Cohen until Monday to produce documentation of his other clients. Maybe I've seen too many movies and/or am too paranoid but I'm afraid that associates of Cohen's were busy creating these documents over the weekend.
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
42,869
Ratings
28,140
Considering what is at stake that must not necessarily be a good thing.

She also gave Cohen until Monday to produce documentation of his other clients. Maybe I've seen too many movies and/or am too paranoid but I'm afraid that associates of Cohen's were busy creating these documents over the weekend.
I am with you on this. I would not trust anyone associated with Trump. That is why the FBI unannounced raids were the right thing for both Cohen and Manafort.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,434
Ratings
11,010

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,434
Ratings
11,010
The GAO finds that Pruitt's secure phone booth violated spending laws. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ederal-watchdog-finds/?utm_term=.91d2257a8527

Why does this man think that he needs something his predecessors didn't? Why would he be more important than them or the information he discusses more sensitive so that the secure facility the EPA has isn't sufficient? The arrogance of the people in Trump's cabinet really has no limits, does it? They're public servants in a democracy, not royalty in a 19th century kingdom or empire.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,763
Ratings
2,281
It’s just like the story above the Pruitt story!!! Trump is allowed to flagrantly and flamboyantly violate the emolument ban in constitution so why can’t all of Trumps cabinet violate ethics? Only when trump is impeached and removed for violating emoluments can ethics be enforced again!
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,434
Ratings
11,010
More on Cohen, Trump and the battle about the evidence https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.25d9bbc6a0c0

The president objects to the government’s proposal to use a ‘taint team’ of prosecutors from the very office that is investigating this matter to conduct the initial privilege review of documents seized from the President’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen,’’ Trump lawyer Joanna Hendon wrote to the judge on Sunday.
She added that “the president respectfully requests” that the judge issue an order barring the taint team from conducting an initial review of the seized material and require the government to turn over a copy of that material to Cohen’s lawyers.

Then, the president wants the court to direct Cohen “to identify to the president all seized materials that relate to him in any way and to provide a copy of those materials to him and his counsel,” according to the letter. Any disputes about what material was or wasn’t covered by the attorney-client privilege would then be decided by a judge, under the president’s proposal.
This sounds an awful lot like Trump is trying to find out what exactly the investigators have and control the investigation. No judge should ever so much as entertain the notion of granting such a request. To anyone.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,763
Ratings
2,281
Do you trust any prosecutor in America not to use evidence that will help them even if it’s found by violating rights? No one should because that’s why death penalty has been found to have been applied to innocent people. Prosecutors in America can’t be trusted. Congress can impeach and remove trump based on his own interviews like with nbc and Holt.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,434
Ratings
11,010
Do you trust any prosecutor in America not to use evidence that will help them even if it’s found by violating rights?
They had a search warrant. No one's rights were violated.

And the issue is that the subject of the investigation is asking for the right to review documents which could incriminate him and have them removed before the prosecution can see the evidence.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,763
Ratings
2,281
They had a search warrant. No one's rights were violated.

And the issue is that the subject of the investigation is asking for the right to review documents which could incriminate him and have them removed them before the prosecution can see the evidence.
Not in that part but do you really trust prosecutors to find privelaged information and not use it? So person a and person b work for the same office but person a (taint team) wouldn’t help person b (prosecutor)? They should appoint retired judges from Alabama or something to be on the taint team not trumps lawyers or any ny federal prosecutors
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
42,869
Ratings
28,140
They had a search warrant. No one's rights were violated.

And the issue is that the subject of the investigation is asking for the right to review documents which could incriminate him and have them removed before the prosecution can see the evidence.
They believe they are above the law because they represent Trump. I even read a headline that Trump wants to review the seized documents. I must repeat someone's line- "Have you no shame, Sir?"
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,434
Ratings
11,010
Not in that part but do you really trust prosecutors to find privelaged information and not use it?
From what I've read the concern for privileged information is why a search warrant is rarely issued for a lawyer's office and why the standards for obtaining a search warrant for a lawyer's office are higher than those for a regular search warrant.

I don't believe for a second that any judge would even so much as consider the request Trump has made (to see documents that could incriminate him before the prosecution and decide what the prosecution gets to see) if you or me were making that request. His request sounds like the equivalent of a suspect asking investigators with a search warrant to wait by the door while he goes through his house and throws out everything he doesn't want investigators to see and only then invites them in.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,434
Ratings
11,010
Trump was reportedly furious with the number of Russian diplomats who were expelled. He is said to have wanted to match the other countries' numbers, not take the lead. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...acd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.18890ab971c9 (And whoever came up with this articles headline must have been living under a rock for the past couple of years)


Trump decided to postpone further sanctions on Russia https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.2748c073f3d3



Cohen's mystery client is Sean Hannity. :eek:
Considering the accusations which have been made against other Fox News Hosts and the services that Cohen has provided for Trump and Broidy, we should have seen this coming, shouldn't we? :wideeyes:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)