How could I vote for such a vulgar disgusting man?

[Winstonm]

Unbelievable!

 

In case you don't know, Rusal is owned by Oleg Deripaska, the oligarch connected to Paul Manafort.

[cherdano]

Remind me - how do we use this to get whole?

[Winstonm]

Remind me - how do we use this to get whole?

 

If you liked that one, you'll like this one:

 

1) Maria Butina, the Russian woman charged in federal court last week with acting as an unregistered agent of her government, received financial support from Konstantin Nikolaev, a Russian billionaire with investments in U.S. energy and technology companies, according to a person familiar with testimony she gave Senate investigators.

 

2)Nikolaev’s fortune has been built largely through port and railroad investments in Russia. He also sits on the board of American Ethane, a Houston ethane company that was showcased by President Trump at an event in China last year.

 

3)Nikolaev has never met Trump, according to his spokesman.

 

4)However, Nikolaev’s son Andrey, who is studying in the United States, volunteered in the 2016 campaign in support of Trump’s candidacy, according a person familiar with his activities. Nikolaev was spotted at the Trump International Hotel in Washington during Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, according to two people aware of his presence.

 

5) Konstantin Nikolaev is a major investor in American Ethane and sits on the company’s board.

 

6) The company was spotlighted by Trump during a visit to Beijing in November. During the trip, Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping presided over a ceremony in which U.S. companies publicly signed deals with Chinese partners. One of the 15 deals deal inked at the event was a $26 billion deal for American Ethane to deliver liquid ethane to China.

 

Fortunately, there was no collusion.

[Al_U_Card]

Despite winning the Republican nomination, Trump might not only be the first "independant" president since Washington (Tyler was booted from the Whig party during his presidency so that doesn't really count...) but the most isolated from the political class of all time. This iconoclastic presentation was part of his popular "drain the swamp" rhetoric. Is he really such a threat to the establishment or is he really the worst evah president?

[Winstonm]

Despite winning the Republican nomination, Trump might not only be the first "independant" president since Washington (Tyler was booted from the Whig party during his presidency so that doesn't really count...) but the most isolated from the political class of all time. This iconoclastic presentation was part of his popular "drain the swamp" rhetoric. Is he really such a threat to the establishment or is he really the worst evah president?

 

Neither - he is the swamp.

[Al_U_Card]

Neither - he is the swamp.

Just despite the length and breadth of the investigation, it seems that the punishment for his "crimes" is mostly exposure and ridicule. Cruel and unusual comes to mind in terms of the extent of the continual speculation. It rivals JFK assassination research. Lots of tantalizing info and innuendo but hardly a smoking gun in sight.

[Winstonm]

Just despite the length and breadth of the investigation, it seems that the punishment for his "crimes" is mostly exposure and ridicule. Cruel and unusual comes to mind in terms of the extent of the continual speculation. It rivals JFK assassination research. Lots of tantalizing info and innuendo but hardly a smoking gun in sight.

 

It is impossible for the public to know at this point. We get bits and drabs from political leakers - but nothing from Mueller.

[johnu]

Just despite the length and breadth of the investigation, it seems that the punishment for his "crimes" is mostly exposure and ridicule. Cruel and unusual comes to mind in terms of the extent of the continual speculation. It rivals JFK assassination research. Lots of tantalizing info and innuendo but hardly a smoking gun in sight.

 

Why would there be any formal punishment for Dennison, unless Congress decided that they wanted to impeach him which this Congress isn't going to do without Mueller's final report.

 

Dennison and his supporters have been having a year+ PR war on Mueller trying to discredit Mueller, his investigators, the evidence, anything that could lead to Dennison being impeached or indicted. They have successfully convinced almost all of the Republicans and much smaller percentages of others. I admit that they have done a lot with virtually nothing to go on except the Fox Propaganda network and alt-right news organizations.

 

So far, 32 individuals and 3 businesses have been indicted by Mueller, and 5 have already plead guilty. The only time the public knows what Mueller has found is when there are formal court documents filed which are publicly available. Otherwise, Mueller's team is remarkably free from leaks, so nobody outside that team really knows what they have on Dennison. There are a lot of people that were close to Dennison that have been indicted. You can put your own spin on that.

[Al_U_Card]

Why would there be any formal punishment for Dennison, unless Congress decided that they wanted to impeach him which this Congress isn't going to do without Mueller's final report.

 

Dennison and his supporters have been having a year+ PR war on Mueller trying to discredit Mueller, his investigators, the evidence, anything that could lead to Dennison being impeached or indicted. They have successfully convinced almost all of the Republicans and much smaller percentages of others. I admit that they have done a lot with virtually nothing to go on except the Fox Propaganda network and alt-right news organizations.

 

So far, 32 individuals and 3 businesses have been indicted by Mueller, and 5 have already plead guilty. The only time the public knows what Mueller has found is when there are formal court documents filed which are publicly available. Otherwise, Mueller's team is remarkably free from leaks, so nobody outside that team really knows what they have on Dennison. There are a lot of people that were close to Dennison that have been indicted. You can put your own spin on that.

Certainly lots of illegality going on in Washington, for some time now... Nixon's impeachment process, as well as the attempt on Bill Clinton seemed to take less time but Trump may just be involved in more things or perhaps is less well-connected. Also seems that the leaks (or a least the rumour-mill) is hard at work speculating on the various nefarious involvements and emoluments. Will Trump be able to complete a second term before they get around to charging him? :blink:

[johnu]

Nixon's impeachment process, as well as the attempt on Bill Clinton seemed to take less time but Trump may just be involved in more things or perhaps is less well-connected.

 

A lot of people have said similar things about a long investigation of Dennison. My personal opinion is that Dennison and Fox Propaganda have spiked the conversation to discredit the investigations by trying to say "look how long these investigations have gone on and they haven't found anything".

 

The Watergate break-in was on June 17, 1972 and Nixon didn't resign until August 9, 1974, so things went on over 2 years. No telling how long impeachment proceedings would have taken if Nixon hadn't resigned.

 

The first Whitewater independent counsel was appointed in January 1994 and the final Clinton impeachment proceedings weren't completed until February 1999, so over 5 years.

 

The conclusions to take away on this are:

 

1. The investigations haven't taken that long compared to recent historical comparisons.

2. We don't know what Mueller has found out about Dennison. This is a very complex case covering dozens of people over a fairly long period of time.

[Al_U_Card]

A lot of people have said similar things about a long investigation of Dennison. My personal opinion is that Dennison and Fox Propaganda have spiked the conversation to discredit the investigations by trying to say "look how long these investigations have gone on and they haven't found anything".

 

The Watergate break-in was on June 17, 1972 and Nixon didn't resign until August 9, 1974, so things went on over 2 years. No telling how long impeachment proceedings would have taken if Nixon hadn't resigned.

 

The first Whitewater independent counsel was appointed in January 1994 and the final Clinton impeachment proceedings weren't completed until February 1999, so over 5 years.

 

The conclusions to take away on this are:

 

1. The investigations haven't taken that long compared to recent historical comparisons.

2. We don't know what Mueller has found out about Dennison. This is a very complex case covering dozens of people over a fairly long period of time.

So it is conceivable that we have yet more time to wait for some actionable evidence to be found/trotted out/used in the next several(?) years. Mark Steyn had this to say about the legal system thereabouts: "The clogged toilet (constipated bowels also) of the DC judicial system." Perhaps circus minimus might also be a similar paraphrase. :angry:

[johnu]

So it is conceivable that we have yet more time to wait for some actionable evidence to be found/trotted out/used in the next several(?) years. Mark Steyn had this to say about the legal system thereabouts: "The clogged toilet (constipated bowels also) of the DC judicial system." Perhaps circus minimus might also be a similar paraphrase. :angry:

 

Were you as angry about the 5 years of Clinton investigations? You don't have to answer because that was purely a rhetorical question.

 

Based on articles by journalists who follow the case, the interview or grand jury testimony of Dennison would be the beginning of the end of the investigation. If so, months, not years before the end of this investigation.

[Al_U_Card]

Were you as angry about the 5 years of Clinton investigations? You don't have to answer because that was purely a rhetorical question.

 

Based on articles by journalists who follow the case, the interview or grand jury testimony of Dennison would be the beginning of the end of the investigation. If so, months, not years before the end of this investigation.

No need to project your gut reaction on to me. I could care less about Trump (personally) or about his internal political and ethical machinations. His actions that affect the world (considerable) are of concern but appear to be about as beneficial/risky as most of your CICs. Is he a sleaze-ball? Certainly seems like it but that may be a pre-requisite for political office ...

[Winstonm]

Another example of faux "populism":

 

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering bypassing Congress to grant a $100 billion tax cut mainly to the wealthy, a legally tenuous maneuver that would cut capital gains taxation and fulfill a long-held ambition of many investors and conservatives.

 

Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, said in an interview on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit meeting in Argentina this month that his department was studying whether it could use its regulatory powers to allow Americans to account for inflation in determining capital gains tax liabilities. The Treasury Department could change the definition of “cost” for calculating capital gains, allowing taxpayers to adjust the initial value of an asset, such as a home or a share of stock, for inflation when it sells.

[kenberg]

So it is conceivable that we have yet more time to wait for some actionable evidence to be found/trotted out/used in the next several(?) years. Mark Steyn had this to say about the legal system thereabouts: "The clogged toilet (constipated bowels also) of the DC judicial system." Perhaps circus minimus might also be a similar paraphrase. :angry:

 

 

It can take a while. this brings to mind Jimmy Hoffa as he was being investigated by the Justice Dept under Bobby Kennedy, talking of all the investigation of Hoffa and finding nothing indictable about Hoffa (Hoffa liked to speak of himself in the third person). Nixon set up tapes, and for whatever the reason didn't turn them off or move to a different room at key moments. Usually people are not that helpful.

To some extent I share the dismay over how these things actually work. Al Capone ran a murderous organization, he went to jail for tax evasion. As to Bill Clinton, I always thought that when Linda Tripp came in to see him about her conversation with Monica Lewinsky, the right response would have been to give her the name and telephone number for Paula Jones' attorney. Starr was (in theory) investigating Whitewater, not who was doing what with a cigar. There is a lot to dislike about the American judicial system. My older daughter was given a high school assignment to go to a court room for a few hours and watch the proceedings. She and I went to one, it was appalling. There was no large case but as we watched I thought "This is our justice system?". A similar point was made in Gorky Park (in the book only, they left it out of the movie) where the Soviet investigator Renko, frustrated by the way things work in the USSR, was pleased when his investigation took him to New York. He looked forward to seeing things done right. He was thoroughly stunned when he saw it all as it actually was.

 

There is a lot to not admire. All that being granted, what Mueller is doing is essential. He must be allowed to carry this forward. Not perfect? Probably not. But it is the very best that we have, and that's it.

 

[Chas_P]

Not perfect? Probably not. But it is the very best that we have, and that's it.

 

The O. J. Simpson trial comes to mind.

[Al_U_Card]

From what I can see, Special Prosecutors are like everything else governmental, they end up being a circus and/or a political football. Getting the sleaze exposed has both a therapeutic and cathartic effect, I suppose, relative to placating the masses, but like show-trials, they have less to do with jurisprudence and more to do with psychology. It may be the best we have but it is a long way from being a best that we can make use of for the betterment of the people or even of the system.

[kenberg]

The O. J. Simpson trial comes to mind.

Yes, but that was (of course just my opinion) a bad verdict. Bad verdicts happen, and when a defendant has fame and money, that ups the chances considerably. But verdicts depend on the jury, and of course a jury will not always get it right.

 

I was more thinking of the day to day running of a system in a way that leaves a lot to be desired. As with, I assume, most others on this thread my experience with the criminal justice system is not large. I'll describe one of the things from when my daughter and I visited the court

 

A guy was brought up from the jail. His dress suggested that he was at least a bit down and out. He was identified and he stood in front of the judge who asked him what the charges were. The man didn't know, or at least said that he did not know. The judge did not know. They guy who had brought him from the jail to the courtroom did not know. After a bit, it was clear that nobody knew what the charges were, so the judge declared him free to go. Say what? A man has spent the night in jail, he is brought into court, and nobody knows the charges or is able to quickly find out the charges? He certainly did not look like a violent person, he just looked, as I said, like someone down and out. But there are supposed tp be charges, and the judge is supposed to know what the charges are. If so, then he might well dismiss the charges. No doubt the system gets overwhelmed so I can sort of understand this, but I would not call it a display of professionalism.

 

Back to Mueller. Troubling in a different way, but basically he is doing what is needed. I understand that Manafort appeared before a judge today and (I heard on PBS) the judge said to the prosecutor something like "Hey, you really are not interested in the money laundering, you are trying to turn him for your probe into election tampering, right?" The prosecutor of course denied that he was doing any such thing. Sure, sure. And Starr was really interested in whether Bill was or was not doing it with Monica. Sure. Btw, I am not saying that these are the same. Money laundering is a crime, having sex with Monica was not a crime. Lying about it under oath was, of course.

 

As I see it, when you are dealing with someone who is rich and powerful, you will not be finding their own fingerprints on a smoking gun. So you have to come at it from the side, as Mueller is doing. I understand the necessity of it. I regret it, but I think that there is no choice. And, parenthetical remark, I have a hell of a lot more regret about what happened to Lewinsky than I do over what is happening to Manfort. Mathematics has a purity to it. Criminal investigations? Not so much.

[Winstonm]

As an aside, I read a book about the OJ trial written by Vince Bugliosi - a famed LA DA who convicted Manson - and he said that the prosecution was abysmal and to blame.

[kenberg]

As an aside, I read a book about the OJ trial written by Vince Bugliosi - a famed LA DA who convicted Manson - and he said that the prosecution was abysmal and to blame.

Some prosecutors are better than others, some defense lawyers are better than others, and if you have money you can afford the better. And some juries need to get a grip on reality. I re-watched Chicago recently. Now there is a show for cynics. "I fired two warning shots, right into his head", or "He ran into my knife. He ran into my knife ten times". Ok, that exceeds even my cynicism, but it works because it was not based completely on fantasy. I started by mentioning Hoffa. "They got nothing on Hoffa" is different from "Hoffa didn't do it". Or it should be different.

Skepticism should be non-partisan. When Madeleine Albright went on tv to say she believed Clinton when he said he did not have sex with that woman, my reaction was "Good grief, and she is our Secretary of State?"

Anyway, Mueller is doing what needs to be done, and he has to be supported in his efforts. Hoffa was a corrupt labor leader, Bill did have sex with that woman, and the Trump campaign was involved, to an extent yet to be determined, with the Russians. And this last is by far the most serious of these three items, Clinton's cheesy sexual behavior the least.

 

[johnu]

Some prosecutors are better than others, some defense lawyers are better than others, and if you have money you can afford the better.

 

IIRC, around the time of the OJ trial, a lawyer named Gerry Spence was getting some good press. Back then, I think he was charging a million+ dollars for a murder case.

 

Gerry Spence

 

According to the link, he never lost a criminal case as prosecutor of defense attorney, and last lost a civil case in 1969.

[barmar]

According to the link, he never lost a criminal case as prosecutor of defense attorney, and last lost a civil case in 1969.

Of course, one way to achieve that level of success as an attorney is to be very selective about the cases you take -- only take on the cases that you think you can win.

 

The only times I've been in a courtroom have been the couple of times I've been called for jury duty, and I've never made it to trial (or even voir dire). So all I know is what I see on TV and movies. I suspect the most realistic was the 2001 series "100 Centre Street", about the day-to-day workings of a NY City courthouse; it was created by Sydney Lumet, and Alan Arkin played a disillusioned judge. And a couple of years ago there was the HBO miniseries "The Night Of", in which John Turtorro plays a downtrodden defense attorney assigned as the court-appointed lawyer for a Pakistani-American student accused of killing a woman during a drunken one-night stand.

 

However, it seems like there should be big difference between what goes on in under-funded, inner-city courthouses and a Special Prosecutor at the national level.

[Winstonm]

The Manafort trial shows what good attorneys can do. By opening the trial with remarks that Manafort was in essence the victim of his unscrupulous underling, Rick Gates, the defense attorneys made it risky for the prosecutors to call Gates as a witness, as it opens him up to cross examination about his role in the crimes. I now see that the prosecution is weighing the idea not calling Gates.

[cherdano]

The Manafort trial shows what good attorneys can do. By opening the trial with remarks that Manafort was in essence the victim of his unscrupulous underling, Rick Gates, the defense attorneys made it risky for the prosecutors to call Gates as a witness, as it opens him up to cross examination about his role in the crimes. I now see that the prosecution is weighing the idea not calling Gates.

Or both are a reflection of the fact that the paper trail alone is enough to convict Manafort.

[kenberg]

I expect that ordinary mortals will have trouble with some of the details, what do I know about money laundering, but yes, I hope and expect that documentary evidence will be the key.That, together with witnesses with impeccable credentials that will assist in the understanding of what the documents show.

 

Surely Mueller is not surprised by "The other dude did it" defense and surely he is prepared for it. I expect there will be a lot of documents, travel logs, documented meetings and so on. Not that I really know diddly about financial stuff.

 

As to "ordinary people" I would expect them to hear Trump calling for an immediate end to the investigation just as the trial begins, and say to themselves "I think I smell a rat". It would take very substantial ideological ear plugs to not hear it that way.

 

I thought that the blasting of NATO allies and the sucking up to Putin would be a turning point. I was wrong, perhaps, about that but I retain a faith that we are entering a very changed phase of the Trump presidency. At some point, we puke. And then we see things in a new way.