The Russia Investigations and other Trump-related cases

Post by **Frelga** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:19 pm

Voronwë the Faithful wrote:I doubt that would be true, though we really don't know enough to know. Manafort and Cohen are likely to know different things, but Manafort was in the thick of the Trump campaign at the time that any so-called collusion might have taken place.

ETA: it's weird that the "subject" of your post is the title of the other "punch a Nazi" thread. I thought for a moment we were posting in the wrong thread when I saw that, but that you were responding to my post, but it isn't so.

What's a post subject, precious? We don't sees it.

Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:27 pm

It doesn't appear in tap-a-talk, but in the regular web messageboard it is at the top of each post. It is automatically the title of the thread, but can be changed manually (for instance, I changed the subject of this post from "Re: The Russia Investigations and other Trump-related cases" to "The world we live in is a very, very strange place").

Tue Jul 24, 2018 4:55 am

One interesting thing about the witnesses who were granted immunity. Judge Ellis also ruled that their names needed to be revealed. In the past week Fox News' Tucker Carlson and other conservative media figures were claiming that their sources were saying that one of the witnesses who was being granted immunity was Tony Podesta, the brother of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign manager and a former partner of Manafort's. This, they claimed, was evidence that Mueller was biased against Republicans (even though he is a Republican) because he was giving immunity to a Democrat lobbyist. Well, Podesta turned out not to be one of the dive after all (they were all employees of financial institutions that worked with Manafort or did his taxes). So much for that!

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

Post by **RoseMorninStar** » Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:35 am

I understand why someone would not want witnesses names revealed, but in this case I think it's important. I suppose the judge realizes that.

Tue Jul 24, 2018 4:03 pm

Apparently, Judge Jones (the Special Master in the Cohen case), had not yet ruled on whether any of audio recordings were privileged when "the parties withdrew their designations of 'privileged' as to 12 audio items that were under consideration by the Special Master" and so she immediately released those 12 audio recordings to the prosecutors. So it is not just the recording of Cohen and Trump talking about the McDougall payment that the privilege was waived on, but 11 other unidentified recordings as well.

Post by **River** » Tue Jul 24, 2018 4:10 pm

I wonder what that's all about.

Post by **Frelga** » Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:28 pm

: IMG_20180708_084411.jpg (58.04 KiB) Viewed 5450 times

Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:40 pm

River wrote:I wonder what that's all about.

It's really hard to say. I have heard, though I don't know whether it is true, that the privilege was waived by Trump's attorney's as to the one recording, but as to the other 11, that it was waived by Cohen's attorneys. However, Judge Jones doesn't say that; she just says that "the parties" withdrew their designation of privilege as to the 12 items, so that could mean either Cohen or the interveners, which are Trump and the Trump Organization (the only other "party" is the U.S. Attorney's office, but obviously they can't withdraw the designation). Also, the media reports that I have seen make it seem like this is confirmation that Cohen had a total of 12 audio recordings, but that is not what Judge Jones says. She just says that the privilege designation was withdraw as to these 12 items and therefore they were immediately released to the prosecutors. She does not say one way or the other whether there are other audio recordings that were designated as privileged and that she is still considering (or that were not designated as privileged and were already released to the prosecutors, or were among those items that she determined were privileged and not given to the prosecutors).

Post by **RoseMorninStar** » Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:18 pm

River wrote: I wonder what that's all about.

Making sense of anything Trump does is futile. The easiest way to attempt to make sense of anything he does is to apply:
#1. Discipline. He has none. Trump has the self-control of a 2 year old. And that is not really being fair to 2 year olds.
#2. Ego. (His fragile ego) It's all about Trump and how it will affect Trump, and Trump alone, all of the time.
#3. Image/Messaging/Brand. It's about marketing and swaying public opinion, not facts or evidence.
#4. Restraint, or lack thereof. It (whatever 'it' may be) has to happen NOW because he has no restraint. Also so he can apply #2 & #3 & #5...
#5. Malice. Malignant malice. He is petty and spiteful and driven by revenge of slights, actual or perceived, to his easily shattered ego.
#6. Last, but certainly not least: Money.

**edited to add #7. It is ALWAYS someone else's fault/someone else is to blame.

The 'experts' (former prosecutors) I listened to on the news last night have said (to paraphrase) it is an odd and short-sighted move. No surprise, but I suppose they (Team Trump) somehow think by 'getting out ahead of this' they can change the narrative, if not the facts. They (the former prosecutor on TV) also mentioned a legal term*.. something a lawyer for the defendant does when they know they're likely to lose the case because the prosecutor has plenty of evidence so they figure what have they got to lose.

Look at all of the stuff he has gotten away with that would have done in any other President. It's ridiculous. The hypocrisy and double-standard is glaring.

*crime/fraud exception.

Post by **Frelga** » Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:05 am

I've been long wondering at the GOP's unpatriotic stance on Russian interference, since I didn't think they had anything to lose and much to gain if Pence became President. Someone said something recently that gave me pause. Russian money - - > NRA - - > donations to GOP campaigns. Too cynical? On my part or theirs?

Post by **Dave_LF** » Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:26 am

Pence is also a poor reelection prospect.

Post by **Frelga** » Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:33 am

Lordy, there are tapes.

Why did Lanny Davis release the tape? Because Giuliani said Cohen said the word "cash," but the tape proves that Trump said it, Davis says. https://t.co/0scT9eocRt https://t.co/XCeoufRk54

Who came up with this convoluted and unrealistic plot line?

Post by **Frelga** » Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:45 am

Dave_LF wrote:Pence is also a poor reelection prospect.

I don't think he'd win a primary, but as an incumbent, he may be less controversial to independents than Trump.

Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:55 am

Frelga wrote:Lordy, there are tapes.

Why did Lanny Davis release the tape? Because Giuliani said Cohen said the word "cash," but the tape proves that Trump said it, Davis says. https://t.co/0scT9eocRt https://t.co/XCeoufRk54
Who came up with this convoluted and unrealistic plot line?

I've not listened to the tape, but from the description I've seen it sure sounds like Giuliani flat out lied about. Which makes no sense since it was a clearly and easily provable lie.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

Post by **Frelga** » Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:56 am

Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
Frelga wrote:Lordy, there are tapes.

Why did Lanny Davis release the tape? Because Giuliani said Cohen said the word "cash," but the tape proves that Trump said it, Davis says. https://t.co/0scT9eocRt https://t.co/XCeoufRk54
Who came up with this convoluted and unrealistic plot line?
I've not listened to the tape, but from the description I've seen it sure sounds like Giuliani flat out lied about. Which makes no sense since it was a clearly and easily provable lie.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

As opposed to which of his other statements.

Post by **River** » Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:07 am

I lost the plot on the Cohen saga.

Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:17 am

As opposed to which of his other statements.

Most of what Giuliani says isn't flat out lies, it is either ridiculous ultimatums (e.g., Trump will only speak to Mueller if he doesn't ask about obstruction) or weird spin (oh by the way, Trump did reimburse Cohen for the Stormy payment after all).

Post by **RoseMorninStar** » Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:35 am

Frelga wrote:I've been long wondering at the GOP's unpatriotic stance on Russian interference, since I didn't think they had anything to lose and much to gain if Pence became President. Someone said something recently that gave me pause. Russian money - - > NRA - - > donations to GOP campaigns. Too cynical? On my part or theirs?

Not cynical at all. I've been thinking this for quite some time. There are clues. I believe the Russian funneled NRA money and the information stolen with Russian help has long been an 'open secret' among (at least some) republicans and it's the reason they have fought so hard against the truth or an investigation into the truth. Their behavior has been so odd. It's because they are complicit, at the very least.

Another bit of gaslighting involving Russia; the OFFICIAL White House transcript AND video of the Helsinki news conference has been altered. It was pointed out that the reporters question asking Putin if he helped Trump get elected has been left off of the transcript AND edited out of the video. The White House refuses to correct the transcript and, well, editing out the video is just so blatantly corrupt. Russia has edited out that part altogether.

Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:36 am

I've now listening to the tape, and to be fair, it really isn't clear. If someone just made a transcript of it, it would say:

Trump: pay in cash.

Cohen: No, no, NO!!!!

But it is unclear enough that it is possible that the word "don't" is unintelligible, and that Cohen's vehement "no" is basically agreeing with Trump and saying of course we shouldn't pay cash, as opposed to him disagreeing with Trump and saying no that is a terrible idea.

Post by **RoseMorninStar** » Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:41 am

My overall take on the tape (not being of the lawyerly persuasion) is that it's a shady deal and it's a common part of regular shady deals that they have engaged in many times. Business as usual. It is intended to influence opinion/hide things prior to elections (including details of his divorce from Ivanna). I guess Trump's accountant is mentioned and his knowledge/record of monies paid would be of great interest.