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.
Collusion Is Possible
It has become an article of faith in some quarters on the right – well, most — that the Mueller investigation has found no evidence of collusion with Russia and has accordingly shifted gears to process crimes like lying to the FBI or obstruction of justice. Having decided that this must be true, many have called for Mueller to wrap it up.
But this requires a lot of wishful thinking.
Consider the sentencing memos. Most of the attention has focused on the payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. But the Office of Special Counsel advised a federal judge that Michael Cohen had committed other serious crimes. He “withheld information material to the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.” He later came clean. Mueller’s office recommended that Cohen be given some credit for this, and included this wording: Cohen “voluntarily provided the SCO with information about his own conduct and that of others on core topics under investigation by the SCO . . . the information he provided has been credible and consistent with other evidence obtained in the SCO’s continuing investigation.”
The “core topic” under investigation is Russian interference in the election. The “other evidence” is unknown to us at this point, but it’s safe to assume that it’s significant, because Mueller would not rely on Cohen’s word alone.
In the sentencing memo about Michael Flynn, Mueller’s office noted that he was cooperating on three criminal investigations. Three.
This should give pause to those who say “If there were any evidence of collusion with Russia, we would have heard of it by now.” Not necessarily. The Mueller investigation has been the most silent of any in memory. He doesn’t leak. His spokesman is said to have the simplest job in Washington, saying “no comment.”
At least 14 people in Donald Trump’s orbit were approached by Russian agents during the campaign and transition. These included his children, his lawyer, his national security advisor, and business associates. His campaign chairman, Trump had reason to know when he hired him, was up to his eyeballs in oligarchs. Supposedly, when Trump learned of Paul Manafort’s extensive Russia ties in 2016, he said “I’ve got a crook running my campaign.” Today he paints Manafort as a martyr and ostentatiously dangles a pardon, even though we’ve since learned of Manafort’s close ties to an asset of Russian intelligence. And it’s worth asking again: If Mr. Trump was such a keen businessman, why didn’t he question Manafort’s willingness to work for free? Shouldn’t it have alarmed him to have someone so indebted to shady Kremlin associates so close?
President Trump has repeatedly denied any connections to Russia. In July, 2016 he told CBS “I mean I have nothing to do with Russia. I don’t have any jobs in Russia. I’m all over the world but we’re not involved in Russia.” And in September, he told a rally “I have nothing to do with Russia, folks. I’ll give you a written statement.”
You don’t have to credit the lurid gossip in the Steele dossier to know that those statements were lies. It has since come to light that his children and top advisors met at Trump Tower with a Russian peddling dirt on Clinton. Or just check the guilty pleas of Michael Cohen. Cohen now confirms that Trump was pursuing a Moscow tower deal until at least June of 2016. The Trump organization was hoping to get Vladimir Putin’s approval and endorsement of the idea, and were apparently considering doing business the Russian way – offering Putin himself the penthouse, valued at $50 million, as a loss leader. Trump signed a letter of intent to go forward with the project on October 28, 2015, the night of the third Republican presidential primary debate – in the midst of denials that he had anything to do with Russia.
Felix Sater, a Russian-born Trump business colleague, was working on this with Cohen. After the letter of intent was signed, Sater wrote to Cohen saying: “Everything will be negotiated and discussed not with flunkies but with people who will have dinner with Putin and discuss the issues and get a go-ahead. My next steps are very sensitive with Putin’s very, very close people. We can pull this off.”
They didn’t. But not for lack of trying. Roger Stone, a longtime Trump pal and self-styled dirty trickster, boasted of ties to Wikileaks. Others who were weirdly friendly toward the Kremlin included George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and, of course, Donald Trump, Jr.
The reason so many people of low character are proving problematic to this president is that he has always attracted that sort. If he let them conspire a little against “crooked Hillary,” would that really be a shock?
Published in Law, Politics
Most women who did business with Hefner probably had some idea what was up, and were open to there being a transactional aspect to “romantic” relationships.
Of course, they all wanted smart sensitive men who only read Playboy for the articles and who had earned or inherited enough money to take them for a romantic dinner in Paris and hop a private jet to Nice or Cannes for that moonlight walk on the beach.
Not necessarily a bad thing. I know a happily married couple; heard the wife one time talking to a girlfriend. Couple and GF all are immigrants from a country bordering on one of the following: Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal/Andaman Sea, South China Sea.
Girlfriend admires wife’s new car; I know she drives BMWs and Benzes and the occasional Lexus; I’m not sure which one this was regarding. Girlfriend: “He really treats you well.” Wife: “He’d better! I’m 18 years younger than he is!”
Given the business that @garyrobbins is in, he only sees the failed transactional marriages.
Oh, by the way: When I typed Playboy above, a typo gave me what might turn out to be the next successful magazine in the genre: Playbot.
I will pay for her lunch!
If Trump resigns, the field will be open. If Trump doesn’t resign, he will be challenged in the primaries. LBJ won the New Hampshire Primary in 1968 over Eugene McCarthy 49-42% on March 12, 1968, Bobbie Kennedy jumped in, and LBJ withdrew.
You have a rich fantasy life, Gary.
The definition of a Texas Trophy Bride. Take the man’s age, divide by 2 and add 7 years. The affair was in 2006 when Trump was 60. Half of 60 is 30. Plus 7 is 37. McDougal was born on March 23, 1981, so she was only 25. So Donald lucked out by 12 years! Funny what the illusion of money can do.
(Caveat: This formula was for a Texas Trophy Bride. I do not know the formula for a Texas Trophy Mistress.)
Concerning what? Karen McDougal? Trump? Collusion? Mueller? The Arizona Cardinals?
That used to be pretty standard for middle class and upper middle class marriages in Europe.
Is all of the above an appropriate answer ;)
Trump’s DOB is 6/14/1946. Melania’s DOB is 4/26/1970. They were married in January 2003. Trump was 56 years old. Melania was 32. 56/2=28. 28+7=35. Donald beat the Texas Trophy Bride test by 3 years!
However, Ivana Trump was 28 and Trump was 31 when they married in 1977. Trump failed the Texas Trophy Bride Test as to her.
Marla Maples was 30 when she married Trump in 1993, when he was 47 years old. She hit the Texas Trophy Bride Test almost exactly. 47/2=23.5. 23.5+7=30.5. Bingo!
Gary, last week several of us gave you plenty of links for you to read at your leisure recounting the number of instances of Robert Mueller’s corruption and perfidious acts. Also several links recounting the conspiracy to destroy the President by the Clintons, the DOJ, the FBI, Russian agents, the news media, Fusion GPS, figures such as James Comey, Robert Mueller, Andrew McCabe, the Despicable Peter Strzok, et al. Taken together they show a broad conspiracy against United States citizens in an attempt to overturn the results of an election.
I trust you read them as you promised to do? Any comment?
And in case you’d like more, here’s another.
Destruction of Evidence. Obstruction of Justice.
I trust that you are actually interested in all the information available to you and not just whatever nonsense appears on the Washington Post website.
And the Bobby Kennedy is . . . ? You may think your Egg McMuffin CIA guy is somehow popular, but he isn’t except to people like Mona and the other hacks at National Review.
In answer to you last question: No! Emphatically not!
This is the main point of our disagreement (and I shall not address this again. It is pointless): You asked me to list Trump’s negative qualities. This I have done. Now you are upset because I disagree with you about what it takes to be good president. You can’t change the rules you yourself laid down. We could spend all day with you moving the goalposts. But, as I say, it is pointless. You asked me to lay down his bad qualities. I complied. You can’t stand the fact that I do like the man. That I have contempt. Well, I do. Live with it.
These are interesting arguments but every time there has been a challenge to Mueller as the Special Prosecutor, it has been shot down by the Courts.
One of my favorite jokes/stories in this area was about a man having dinner with his wife at a very expensive restaurant when a beautiful young woman waves to the man and blows him a kiss. The wife asks in an angry tone, “Exactly who is that?” The man answers, “If you really want to know, she’s my mistress.”
The wife immediately demands a divorce and the man says, “Do you really want to give the house on the Gulf Coast, the Mercedes and Audi TT, the furs and diamonds, the vacations in Europe?” The wife sits in silence for a while. Upon seeing a friend walk in with a young woman on his arm, she asks her husband, “Who is that with Doug?” The husband answers, “Not that it’s your concern, but that’s his mistress.” The wife stares for a moment and says, “I think ours is prettier.”
That’s a non-sequitur. I didn’t ask about court challenges to Mueller as the Special Prosecutor. I asked if you read those articles as you repeatedly promised to do, and wanted your opinion of their content.
It’s not aimed at Gary specifically. Did I say “Gary is playing with fire”? No I said Nevers. That includes the politicians, the pundits who try to peddle their schlock, and the magazines and websites that are always begging for money.
Not that complicated. Even you should be able to understand that.
Gary, thank you in advance for reading THIS. It would seem to contain much information you would find useful.
George, Trump is strategic in this. He saw how George W Bush never ‘punched down’ and let the press paint him as a horrible monster. Trump has vowed (for better or worse) never to let that happen again.
Gary, thank you in advance for reading this article. It’s where I found the infographic linked above. I know you will find these pieces very helpful in your journey toward truth and understanding.
It was lease, not a purchase.
I have reviewed the articles. I am not convinced, but I keep reading them in good faith.
It’s also what drew some people to Trump, that is derided by some pundits as “but he fights”. People were getting tired in Bush’s second term of defending him from vicious attacks and never saw him fight back. They wondered why they should expend so much energy if the target isn’t going to lift a finger to defend himself. I’ve heard that Karl Rove has acknowledged that this was a fault of their administration.
Along came Trump and when attacked by Democrats with bylines he didn’t roll over and show his belly as Republicans are want to do. People were excited to see someone return fire. Sure it isn’t always the smartest counterattack but it beats being a punching bag.
I can’t read it. The lettering is too small. Sorry.
I am a bit leery of news sources that I don’t know. I have never heard of Epoch Times before.
Thanks for the insult. I always enjoy being insulted by such a giant mind.
Click on it and it expands. You will enjoy it!
What did you find unconvincing?
Also, Gary, what’s your take on the deliberate destruction of evidence as outlined above in the OIG report?
That is great! Well stated.
When I saw my surgeon last week he asked if I had high blood pressure. My answer was that I was a carrier of high blood pressure. (In other words, I give it to others.)
One of the classics:
Or: