Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Breaking: Manafort Found Guilty on 8 of 18 Counts, Cohen Pleads Guilty to 8 Counts
Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman for candidate Donald Trump, was facing 18 criminal counts. The jury found him guilty on eight of the counts, which included five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failure to disclose a foreign bank account. The jury said that they could not reach consensus on 10 of the counts, so those were declared a mistrial.
At about the same time the Manafort verdict came in, Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to eight counts. He admitted that he paid a pornographic actress for her silence during the 2016 presidential campaign and pleaded guilty to multiple charges of bank and tax fraud.
JUST IN: Cohen tells court under oath that he violated campaign law *at the direction* of the candidate, Donald Trump; says he acted for the purpose of influencing the election, @CNN/@Reuters report.
— Mark Albert (@malbertnews) August 21, 2018
.
Published in General
That would be the reasonable answer to the question, but when in the past 3-4 years have we lived in the sane timeline?
So Trump the non-politician was too naive to use cutouts when gathering his oppo the way the professional pols do.
So much for bridges.
Googling for convictions under President Bush I ran across this handy chart from Daily Kos. It’s Daily Kos, so I do not vouch for accuracy, but i assume this much is public record and the numbers probably aren’t entirely off.
Now, it’s possible that only Republicans “surround themselves with crooks” including Saint Reagan and Honorable Bush. More likely, I think, is that 1) it is the Swamp so crooks are ever present, and 2) the one way weaponization of the law has been reality for far longer than we thought.
And I don’t mind a strict adherence to law. BUT. The highest principle here, to me, is that the rule should either apply to everybody equally or nobody at all. If it applies to everybody equally then federal prosecutors and judges better plan for extra late nights, weekends, and no vacations; hire more interns – because I suspect that we’re waaaaay behind on indictments across government. HRC and all in her orbit for starters. Pay special attention to Illinois (like shooting fish in a barrel over here). Maybe the Swamp will end up draining itself.
Honestly I think it could go either way. I could see how it was a campaign contribution. I can also see how it wasn’t. Because of that I tend to not care too much one way or the other about it. It’s not a big deal to me, whether Trump, Republican, or Democrat.
However, I can also see why it should be a big deal. It’s the president engaging in a “crime”. Then lying about the crime (if he did in fact lie, which, I admit, I don’t care enough to go back and parse all of the quotes – though I’m sure I’ll be forced to care soon enough).
Most importantly, though, I worry about the political weaponization of the law. However, I do not want my side to be the one unilaterally surrendering.
Allow me to clarify something:
Most pols don’t get their opposition research from foreign governments, especially the Russians.
You get that that’s not a normal thing right?
And if they’re offered information from a foreign government, especially the Russians, it sets off alarm bells. At a minimum, they run the other way. The smart ones call the FBI.
What they don’t do is meet with the Russians, then lie about it repeatedly.
In a Fox News interview, Michael Caputo says that Cohen earlier and publicly claimed that Trump did not order the payoff.
I believe that in any circumstances testimony should be backed by physical evidence or otherwise be verified without reliance on trust to convict a defendant. But in a situation involving a witness who has proven a liar, anything he says should obviously be substantiated by other evidence. Is Caputo mistaken?
Why does Cohen’s testimony matter, if he has proven a liar?
Tim Pawlenty with John Kasich VP.
The rule should apply to everybody or nobody. I’m ok with it applying to everybody. Drain the Swamp! A special election to replace disgraced politicians in every pot! Nothing to fear but fear of NDA’s itself!
That’s part of the problem. Who do you believe, the proven liar (Cohen) or the proven liar (Trump)?
I agree none of this is good, but is any of it a crime? If it’s not a crime, do you expect Republicans to hand the white house off to the left in 2020 (which is guaranteed what impeachment would do) for impropriety that is not illegal?
No. Pawlenty is done. His career is over.
Kasich is obviously going to make a run in 2020. The question is whether it’ll be against Trump or Pence.
No, HRC just paid (through intermediaries) foreign agents to actually obtain and disseminate political dirt from Russians. It’s either all a crime or none of it is. I honestly don’t think that should be a crime either, though.
Yeah the Steele Dossier is still sitting out there polluting the environment like the elephants foot.
It would most certainly be a crime if they lied about it under oath. Or if they obstructed justice, or engaged in a conspiracy, to attempt to cover it up.
Oh right. So Charlie Crist with Jeff Flake VP.
Speculating on who Kasich might pick as his veep two years from now if he were to run for President and win the Republican nomination seems a little … premature?
Obstruction of justice. What justice and which obstruction? Conspiracy to………? Cover up what exactly?
Never mind. This is also a well worn rut.
Trump hasn’t given testimony, so he obviously hasn’t lied under oath.
That would be perjury. He hasn’t done that … yet. Obstruction of justice on the other hand…
Heh, not once did I speculate on who would be Kasich’s VP pick. No matter. I’m on board the Gary Robbins train! Who will be Reagan to Trump’s Nixon? Now is exactly the right time to discuss that. It was always the right time, and it will be for ever, and ever, and ever, and ever and ever……………………………………………. All work and no play make Ed G. a dull boy.
I am giving you the world’s biggest eye roll right now. He has not been disposed, nor even spoken to investigators. He cannot have lied under oath. If you are going to be that pedantic about my speech, you need to be more precise in yours.
You’re familiar with the provenance of the Steele Dossier, aren’t you?
Did it come from an enemy foreign government?
This is the nut of the matter.
Here are the remaining links that may have been solved but are not public. (Yes, I am speculating, based upon the available evidence.)
But for Pawlenty losing his primary a week ago, I would have agreed.
[Yet.]
Yes. High ranking Russians close to Putin, according to Steele.
That is, of course, if you consider Russia to be an enemy. That’s some strong stuff there, escalating (or degrading) relations with a nuclear nation like Russia. I suppose it’s worth it, though, if we get rid of Trump in the process.
Brian Sandoval, the beloved Hispanic Governor of Nevada who has stayed far away from DC?
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a man of unquestioned decency?
Is the CIA engaged with collusion with foreign governments when it solicits information from foreign government officials?
We are in the Second Quarter, just before the Two Minute Warning. Mueller has the ball on the 20, with all three timeouts available.