Trump 2018 - Trump Foundation ordered to dissolve, Flynn Sentencing Delayed

[Swykk]

Spin this any way you like but you really ought to know better by now. The DNC backed the wrong candidate and had plenty of warning signs beforehand. On top of that, they backed Hillary by rigging an already shitty system.

Bernie Sanders’ brand of Democratic Socialism is something the Democrats needed to embrace (still do) instead of being ineffective centrist duds with little message other than “Uh...we aren’t Trump.” And cool, that might be winning them some seats now and in 6 months, but how long term is it? Sanders was the only candidate that gave a shit about the American people as a whole.

Edited because I was harsh and this is a much better way of making my point: Look, if we don’t acknowledge and learn from these mistakes made, the game will continue the same as ever, and we will lose in the end.

[Louie_Cypher]

great doc on Netflix called " Trump an American dream", shows what most already know, he's always been a liar cheat and con man.
-Louie

[Harry Seaward]

Spin this any way you like but you really ought to know better by now. The DNC backed the wrong candidate and had plenty of warning signs beforehand. On top of that, they backed Hillary by rigging an already shitty system.

Bernie Sanders’ brand of Democratic Socialism is something the Democrats needed to embrace (still do) instead of being ineffective centrist duds with little message other than “Uh...we aren’t Trump.” And cool, that might be winning them some seats now and in 6 months, but how long term is it? Sanders was the only candidate that gave a shit about the American people as a whole.

Edited because I was harsh and this is a much better way of making my point: Look, if we don’t acknowledge and learn from these mistakes made, the game will continue the same as ever, and we will lose in the end.

It's possible to be a Bernie fan who agrees with most of this (I am) without thinking the DNC rigged anything. Sanders voters didn't get the fuck out and vote so we got HRC. That seems like one of the easier things to accept from this past election.

[Louie_Cypher]

Bernie had little to no name recognition was not supported by hardly media one of the many reasons the corrupt DNC did no back him one of the huge money scams in politics is campaign dollars most of it goes to obscure relatives to run ad campaigns through tv and other venues. currently reading a book called "secret Empires" which is about proxy corruption. but if you start to look at how much money is spent on campaigns were that money comes from and who's pocket it ends up in. plus if you think about all the free press eyeballs trump received through shear craziness of him even running. compared to a calm old jew who talks about boring progressive ideas like healthcare and collage education for all. the most controversial thing about Bernie was Larry David impersonating him on SNL. people were complacent after eight years of Obama he abandon most of his progressive ideas after he got elected. were were still in Afghanistan and Iraq. Guantanamo was was still open and ACA was still struggling. my. personal feeling is he was afraid of fox and still self aware that he was black. the whole birther thing is thinly vieled racism when have every questioned the citizenship of a sitting president? oh that's right once, when that president happened to be black. it's a little framing thing the right does called "the others". if you truly feel you're being oppressed don't look below your station look above it.
-Louie

[allegro]

Spin this any way you like but you really ought to know better by now. The DNC backed the wrong candidate and had plenty of warning signs beforehand. On top of that, they backed Hillary by rigging an already shitty system.

Bernie Sanders’ brand of Democratic Socialism is something the Democrats needed to embrace (still do) instead of being ineffective centrist duds with little message other than “Uh...we aren’t Trump.” And cool, that might be winning them some seats now and in 6 months, but how long term is it? Sanders was the only candidate that gave a shit about the American people as a whole.

Edited because I was harsh and this is a much better way of making my point: Look, if we don’t acknowledge and learn from these mistakes made, the game will continue the same as ever, and we will lose in the end.

I respect your opinion but I disagree; Bernie Sanders never appealed to women voters or minority voters or centrist voters (which are the majority of voters) to bring enough people to the polls to win the Primary, let alone the election. The chosen candidate in 2008 was Hillary Clinton, but she was upset by Barack Obama and the DNC switched their chosen candidate because voters forced them to do so and Obama was a bigger force and had a huge wave of minority and women voters behind him. And he beat John McCain (and then again Mitt Romney) by bringing a record number of voters to the voting booths. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders did that. Both were akin to a John Kerry or an Al Gore. Which wasn't really their fault; nobody else with the charisma of a Barack Obama or a Bill Clinton had thrown their hat into the ring. Remember that the RNC put all of their money and backing behind Jeb Bush; when Romney tried entering the ring, the RNC told him to GTFO, Jeb was their man; but Trump had other plans; so did the voters; the DNC and the RNC don't tell people how to vote, and when a certain candidate is getting a lot of attention, the mainstream media is going to focus a shitload of attention on that candidate, which is what happened to Trump. Trump got free publicity from the mainstream media, and overshadowed all other candidates, including the Democratic candidates.

I *like* Bernie Sanders, I really do. I've liked Bernie for many many years. But I think Bernie, much like Elizabeth Warren, best serves as a Senator. And, even then, Bernie hadn't been very known for reaching across the aisle; so with a Republican majority, exactly zero would get done.

And everything that @Louie_Cypher just said.

As much as it is a pain in the ass having the Cheeto as President, a supermajority is cyclical and typical of our history; the Republican party is having a total meltdown right now, is splintering, and Trump pushed them right over the edge; which had to happen.

And as much as Hillary Clinton loves blaming James Comey for her losing the election, her own fucking husband getting on Loretta Lynch's private jet had a lot to do with it, as did her own arrogance in having a private email server; both of them are above the law, so they get what they deserve, and she still doesn't get it. Neither does Trump. But this doesn't mean Sanders would have won. Too many people are turned off by (a) the "socialist" label he uses, (b) the progressive ideas that imply that nothing will ever ever ever get done, and (c) the somewhat non-inclusive old-fashioned wealthy Vermont background of his constituency, even if he himself has an old Hippy background. Optics are important. Re-brand it something other than "socialism." Call it Democratic Equality, Democratic Liberty, whatever you want, but Socialism means the stepping stone to Communism to too many people in this country, including millions of immigrants who escaped it.

[Louie_Cypher]

one of the concepts put forth in "secret Empires" is called smash and grab which is crushing a company through legislation when the stock plummets send some one come in to gain controlling shares and walk away with a boatload of money. the Clinton foundation did this a number of times in the energy sector which were a direct result of russain sanctions. i wonder if the same fate is not in store for Facebook, very right wing Sinclair media has huge holdings in Facebook and runs straight up propaganda under the guise of circa.
-louie

[allegro]

one of the concepts put forth in "secret Empires" is called smash and grab which is crushing a company through legislation when the stock plummets send some one come in to gain controlling shares and walk away with a boatload of money. the Clinton foundation did this a number of times in the energy sector which were a direct result of russain sanctions. i wonder if the same fate is not in store for Facebook, very right wing Sinclair media has huge holdings in Facebook and runs straight up propaganda under the guise of circa.
-louie

Disaster Capitalism.

[allegro]

Man, I could watch Dershowitz all day. Watch the clip below from this morning’s “This Week.”

He is totally correct on this, I’ve been involved in Federal cases, they threaten, they play dirty, they go on “fishing expeditions,” if there’s no good evidence, they’ll invent it, the Federal judges help them, never penalize them for playing dirty, and you’d better pray you are never in their sights.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...act_trump.html

See also: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._to_cohen.html

[Jinsai]

the thing is... Trump is bragging on Twitter that Cohen won't "flip..."

Uh, Trump... if you did nothing wrong, there's nothing to flip on.

[allegro]

the thing is... Trump is bragging on Twitter that Cohen won't "flip..."

Uh, Trump... if you did nothing wrong, there's nothing to flip on.

Well, yeah, except as Dershowitz pointed out, the Feds can pin you on the tiniest of offenses. Nothing will HAPPEN to Trump, mind you, but I think they're looking for big fish. Not sure what the big fish IS, strangely, I don't think it's Trump. I think it's bigger than Trump.

[sweeterthan]

I don’t know. Trump has bragged about getting away with things and not paying taxes all his life. Surely, some sort of illegal activity haunts him and that’s why he acts (tweets?) so guiltily. Plus the gop didn’t even want him as a candidate and no one wants to be in his cabinet. Who else could they be after? Maybe Ryan? McConnell?

[allegro]

I don’t know. Trump has bragged about getting away with things and not paying taxes all his life. Surely, some sort of illegal activity haunts him and that’s why he acts (tweets?) so guiltily. Plus the gop didn’t even want him as a candidate and no one wants to be in his cabinet. Who else could they be after? Maybe Ryan? McConnell?

Read this article:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-trump-w518941

Also this one:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...nal-indictment


@Jinsai , remember, Trump isn’t saying he’s done “nothing wrong.” He’s saying “no collusion.” Collusion isn’t even a crime, there isn’t really a statute against collusion; it isn’t even defined. “No collusion!!” is just another diversion.

[Jinsai]

@Jinsai, remember, Trump isn’t saying he’s done “nothing wrong.” He’s saying “no collusion.” Collusion isn’t even a crime, there isn’t really a statute against collusion; it isn’t even defined. “No collusion!!” is just another diversion.

If the nature of the collusion could be deemed treason, in service of asking foreign powers to collaborate to undermine our electoral process, it's a crime... right? I mean, if anything could be easily termed a crime, that's it right?

Either way, it doesn't necessarily matter if collusion is the crime he's charged with. It could be the reason for the investigative inquiry, and if they find something else then that doesn't just go away. We only need to go back to Clinton's BJ lie to see that in action. Honestly, if we're talking impeachment, I think it's either going to wind up with the emoluments clause or perjury.

If they get him to testify under oath Trump will be fucked. He's incapable of telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He's never done it in his life.

[Wretchedest]

Collusion in our colloquial sense is referring to,as I understand it, basically a campaign finance violation in accepting aid from a foreign body. That is a crime and it can be described as collusion, in this case.

[allegro]

We can't charge him with "Collusion" because no such crime exists, you can't pull out a book of statutes and look up "collusion. That's my point. It doesn't exist, so we can't charge him for it or impeach him for it.

"Impeachment" is a word that is synonymous with "indictment." Impeach is when you indict the President of the United States for breaking a law.

But, the law has to be on the books.

The reason why Comey and the F.B.I. didn't bring charges against Hillary Clinton is because she didn't break any laws; at least, they couldn't find evidence of it. There also has to be some level of INTENT. It can't be accidental.

Re Treason: Here is the 18 U.S. Code Section 2381 defining Treason:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

NOTES:

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 1, 2 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§ 1, 2, 35 Stat. 1088).

Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

The language referring to collection of the fine was omitted as obsolete and repugnant to the more humane policy of modern law which does not impose criminal consequences on the innocent.

The words “every person so convicted of treason” were omitted as redundant.

Minor change was made in phraseology.

Amendments
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 inserted “under this title but” before “not less than $10,000”.

The definition is very specific, INTENT is required, the intent is to aid the OTHER country, and the other country must be an "enemy," and the "enemy" is defined as a country against which we have declared war.

See this article, written by Carlton F.W. Larson, a professor of law at the University of California at Davis: "Five myths about treason: The Constitution defines it narrowly — and no, bungling classified material doesn’t count."

What the Mueller team is investigating is THIS: 52 U.S. Code Section 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

The letter appointing Mueller is HERE.

The mainstream media and voters need to stop using the word "collusion" and start using the word "conspiracy." Which is exactly what the DNC lawsuit calls it. But, go even further. Let's go with RICO.

You wanna see what huge thing I'm talking about beyond this dumb bullshit of "conspiracy" or "treason?"

HERE YA GO.

[Jinsai]

Let me clarify then... I don't know what they're going to get him on, and I don't care what it is really (because the rule book as been so thoroughly shit on here), but if they get him to testify under oath after they've skimmed through his fixer/lawyer's books, he will commit perjury.

With regards to collusion, the crime itself may not be a text-book crime, but treason is.

Also, I know everyone is waking up to this word "emoluments" now, and so it gets a little easy to roll the eyes when we hear people use it as though it was a word they knew about three years ago, but it seems like the underpinning concept is instinctively correct and feels like a protection that always should have logically been considered.

[allegro]

With regards to collusion, the crime itself may not be a text-book crime, but treason is.

No, it's not.

Americans THINK they know what Treason is, but they don't. They really don't. They see it on TV, or in the movies, but they have no idea what "textbook treason" is.

From the above-linked article about Treason myths, written by a law professor:

MYTH NO. 1

Disloyalty or policies that harm the United States are treason.

Accusations of treason have recently been made on the flimsiest of grounds, from assertions that President Barack Obama committed treason by supporting the Iran nuclear deal (found in James McCormack’s book “Unexpected Treason”) to claims that, per Paste magazine, Sen. John McCain committed treason because he threatened not to confirm a Supreme Court justice hypothetically nominated by Hillary Clinton.

The framers of the Constitution took deliberate steps to ensure that treason trials would not be used as political weapons against opponents. Article 3, Section 3 defines the crime very narrowly: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” This language is drawn from an English statute from 1351 that was also intended to limit the scope of treason. Speaking against the government, undermining political opponents, supporting harmful policies or even placing the interests of another nation ahead of those of the United States are not acts of treason under the Constitution.

MYTH NO. 2

Aiding Russia is treason against the United States.

Stephen Colbert’s recent segment “Michael Flynn’s White House Tenure: It’s Funny ’Cause It’s Treason” was but one of many accusations of treason hurled against Flynn and other White House associates because of their proven or alleged ties to Russia. “Consider the evidence that Trump is a traitor,” exhorted an essay in Salon. It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the “enemies” of the United States.

But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.

This was true even in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg handed over nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were tried and executed for espionage, not treason. Indeed, Trump could give the U.S. nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin or bug the Oval Office with a direct line to the Kremlin and it would not be treason, as a legal matter. Of course, such conduct would violate various laws and would constitute grounds for impeachment as a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the framers fully understood that there could be cases of reprehensible disloyalty that might escape the narrow confines of the treason clause.

So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, since the Korean War was never formally concluded. Certain nonstate actors can also count as enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State probably fit the definition.

MYTH NO. 3

Leaking classified material or handling it sloppily is treason.

Shortly before Election Day in November, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Mike McCaul, claimed that Clinton had committed treason by mishandling classified email. Edward Snowden has been denounced as a traitor for leaking classified documents, as have the intelligence officials who may have leaked damaging material about Flynn. The Conservative Daily Post pointed to “traitor moles nestled within the new admin.”

But none of these actions amounts to levying war against the United States, as that offense requires some use of force in an attempt to overthrow the government. No such force or intent is present in any of these scenarios. Nor do the actions constitute aiding the enemy. Leaking information to newspapers is not providing aid to “enemies.” This newspaper and others, whatever Trump might think of them, are not enemies of the United States. As with aid to Russia, such leaks might violate other provisions of federal law, but they are not treason.

MYTH NO. 4

Only U.S. citizens can commit treason against the U.S.

Even well-trained constitutional lawyers have sometimes repeated this myth. In his otherwise excellent book “Constitutional Faith,” for instance, Sanford Levinson writes that treason “can be committed only by a citizen.”

But the offense of treason can be committed by any person who owes allegiance to the United States, and this can include noncitizens. Treason law recognizes two kinds of allegiance: permanent and temporary. U.S. citizens owe permanent allegiance to the United States, and this duty carries with them wherever they go in the world. By contrast, noncitizens in the United States (other than ambassadors and their staffs) owe a duty of temporary allegiance, the Supreme Court found in an 1872 case. While they are within the United States and receiving protection from it, noncitizens are governed by American treason law. If a person on a green card or a student or tourist visa, for example, wages war against the United States or provides aid and comfort to our enemies, he cannot escape a treason prosecution simply by asserting his foreign citizenship.

Under this law, there is a strong argument that the 9/11 hijackers committed treason by levying war against the United States. When a noncitizen leaves the country, however, the duty of temporary allegiance disappears.

MYTH NO. 5

Very few Americans have committed treason.

No person has been executed for treason by the federal government under the Constitution. The small handful of people who have been convicted of the offense at the federal level — such as two militants from the Whiskey Rebellion and several people after World War II — have mostly been pardoned or released. So we are sometimes told that treason has been “rare” in the United States.

Hardly. During the American Revolution, the rebelling Americans were all committing treason against Britain. Similarly, the thousands of Americans who actively aided the British committed treason against the United States. In the Civil War, the hundreds of thousands of men who fought for the Confederacy all levied war against the United States, as did the people who aided and abetted the rebellion.

Neither the American Revolution nor the Civil War led to mass executions. At the end of the day, the spirit of reconciliation prevailed, and the victors allowed the vanquished to return home peacefully. But it remains the case that many Americans have a traitor lurking somewhere in their family tree.

[allegro]

again, I highly recommend that article I linked above, re RICO.

[Louie_Cypher]

best case of laws broken possible money laundering, bank fraud wire fraud, tax evasion campaign fiance laws and the big one obstruction of justice.I can probably find more.
-Louie

[allegro]

best case of laws broken possible money laundering, bank fraud wire fraud, tax evasion campaign fiance laws and the big one obstruction of justice.I can probably find more.
-Louie

They are trying to go after Cohen for all of those already, and Mueller says that Trump is not a current criminal target. (He is obligated to say whether or not Trump is a target, he can't fudge this.) They are, of course, looking for any evidence of Cohen's and Manifort's misdeeds leading directly to Trump.

Money laundering falls under the nice tidy collective definition of "RICO" when it's tied to the Russian Mob ("Mafiya") and shady Kremlin mob characters and mobsters from the Ukraine.

(Money laundering falls under "racket" and racket can fall under RICO.)

The DNC filed a civil RICO suit against Trump and his campaign (and Russia and Wikileaks).

But the two most important charges are Counts II and III: the civil RICO charges. The DNC alleges “The Trump Campaign Was A Racketeering Enterprise.” In the alternative, they allege “The Trump Campaign Was An Association-In-Fact Enterprise.”

Getting an organization labeled a criminal conspiracy for the purposes of civil RICO charges is a high bar. The DNC would have to prove an actual agreement existed between all the parties. Just going on the information that is publicly available, we don’t really know if everybody from Paul Manafort to Roger Stone to Julian Assange to Guccifer actually achieved a common conspiracy. There is more than enough evidence to show that there was an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy, but establishing the conspiracy itself will be a challenge.

But, as any defense lawyer could tell you, if the DNC can show that a “conspiracy” existed… that’s the whole ball game. It is OVER. You don’t survive a RICO charge if a conspiracy can be shown. RICO is the Gozer of criminal prosecutors and civil plaintiffs, if it is invoked it can take nearly any form to destroy what it seeks.

You can read the full lawsuit here. There are no new allegations, but the theory of the crime is worth reading.

The first test for this lawsuit will likely be a motion to dismiss on behalf of all parties. The Russians will allege the court has no authority, Wikileaks will… well I don’t actually know what Wikileaks does except steal things. And all of the named defendants will argue that the DNC didn’t allege enough facts to support a possible criminal conspiracy. Even if the lawsuit survives dismissal, the DNC will have to wait in line behind the ongoing criminal investigations already underway. The DNC will not be getting a deposition from Roger Stone any time soon.

But, here’s why I think is why the DNC is doing this: if the lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss, then they will have opened a truly independent third front to investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. I’ve already said that I think we are close to the point where Trump cannot fire his way out of trouble. If this DNC lawsuit goes forward, Trump’s ability to stop the bleeding with dismissals is foreclosed.

[Jinsai]

well, if conspiracy to aid a hostile foreign power to undermine the election cycle for who runs your country ISN'T treason, what the fuck is?

[allegro]

well, if conspiracy to aid a hostile foreign power to undermine the election cycle for who runs your country ISN'T treason, what the fuck is?

Huh? I just posted a long post by a Constitutional law professor regarding the exact definition of treason and the myths thereof. We like to call things “treason” and throw the word around when we don’t know what it means. Treason requires an enemy defined as “a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war.” That’s not Russia. Russia is often a financial and munitions adversary, but we are not currently at war with Russia.

You want a good example of treason?

The Confederate Army. Fired shots on Fort Sumpter, seceded from its own country, formed a separate country, declared war against the Union.

Trump + Russia = a lot of things, including conspiracy, contributions by foreign nationals, emoluments, money laundering, fraudulent transactions, etc.

[Jinsai]

but Russia has been playing a proxy war with us since the end of the "Cold War," which was a "special" kind of non-war...

Sometimes I think these technical distinctions need to be upgraded. Let's just call it treason when you help fuck your own country on the highest level possible for your own personal interest? We'll call it "Trump Treason" or something.

[onthewall2983]

Trivial an issue as it might seem here, but the fact that Bernie Sanders voted for FOSTA/SESTA is shaping to be the straw that breaks my back as far as supporting him. It's a piece of legislation that will be designed (no matter it's good, but ultimately misguided intentions) to destroy legal sex work in this country and put a lot of young men and women at risk. Beyond that, it also has the potential to endanger people who live alternative lifestyles who need the internet as a lifeline, by putting certain websites on notice and scaring them like with what happened to craigslist.

[Jinsai]

Trivial an issue as it might seem here, but the fact that Bernie Sanders voted for FOSTA/SESTA is shaping to be the straw that breaks my back as far as supporting him. It's a piece of legislation that will be designed (no matter it's good, but ultimately misguided intentions) to destroy legal sex work in this country and put a lot of young men and women at risk. Beyond that, it also has the potential to endanger people who live alternative lifestyles who need the internet as a lifeline, by putting certain websites on notice and scaring them like with what happened to craigslist.

If THIS is the issue that makes you jump off the most progressive highlighted politician in America, I say this with the most sincere attempt to not offend, but you are really putting the cart before the horse.

Maybe I'm jaded, but at this point it feels like if a politician is winning me over 100%, I should worry that I've been brainwashed into a cult.

All that said, Bernie Sanders will never be president. I'd be shocked if he entertained running again.

[onthewall2983]

That's a healthy worry and concern I share, for sure.

The bill has deeper consequences regarding internet censorship as well, which is obviously one issue worrying all of us as it is. That said I will give Sanders and others the benefit of the doubt, if they can will themselves to listen to those who oppose the bill and weigh the potential consequences against what it is being sold as.

I actually hope he doesn't run again regardless of this, there needs to be room for younger, fresh voices to pop up soon if there's any chance of turning Washington around.

[allegro]

but Russia has been playing a proxy war with us since the end of the "Cold War," which was a "special" kind of non-war...

Sometimes I think these technical distinctions need to be upgraded. Let's just call it treason when you help fuck your own country on the highest level possible for your own personal interest? We'll call it "Trump Treason" or something.

Look, what I'm saying is, get off the "treason" thing. It ain't happening. There is a Constitutional definition of treason, and it ain't changing. I'm sure there are plenty of things he HAS done, but treason ain't one of them.

A SHITLOAD of people on the right have been demanding that Hillary Clinton be locked up for treason for many years, for the Uranium One deal and for a ton of other shit, none of which is treason, but you can't convince them of that, either. Because "treason" appears to be the holiest of holy crimes against the country, it sounds good.

And Trump and the GOP want Comey, the DOJ and the FBI to be arrested for treason.

You got treason, they got treason, he got treason, she got treason, wouldn't you like to have some treason, too.

Coming to Broadway next week ...

Gorbachev introduced Perestroika, Glasnost, and Demokratizatsiya. The U.S.S.R. was dissolved in 1991. We have had many disagreements with Russia over the years, certainly, and we haven't always counted Russia as an ally, but we didn't start having problems again with Russia until Putin. Proxy war is not a "non war." It's a third party war. A financial war isn't really a war, either. Our relationship with Russia is a volatile and often adversarial relationship, sparked by Putin, but it's not a war. The constitution's definition of treason requires an actual declared war, so move on, there is no treason.

It's possible that there was a conspiracy between the Trump campaign or workers involved in Trump's campaign and the Kremlin and Ukrainian mob players that was designed to financially benefit Moscow and the Trump Organization, which is a matter of aid from a foreign government in order to benefit Trump, personally, so he can get lots of venture capital funds and Moscow hotel deals in exchange for the assurance that no sanctions would be placed against Russia that would hurt them, financially (a/k/a quid pro quo). Russia is a financial mess, they have been for quite some time. This agreement is illegal; but it's not treason.


You know what PISSES ME OFF???

All these people focusing on the fucking PRESIDENT but we have a midterm coming up and people should be FOCUSING ALL OF THEIR ENERGY ON THAT!!!

ALL OF THEIR ENERGY

You know that FUCKING ASSHOLE Nunez in in CALIFORNIA!

There are a SHITLOAD of California House seats open that could FLIP THE HOUSE.

We do NOT want a President Pence. This President is DESTROYING the Republican party right now, he's FUBARing it, totally, and man, imho, that's a good thing. It needed to get totally fucked up.

The midterms could TOTALLY flip Congress to a Democratic majority, but people are too focused on the orange guy.

Which is what he loves you to do.

Don't do it.

[theimage13]

Special Master, instead of a taint team, to review seized Cohen documents to make initial determination on status of privileged information.

God, I love the titles involved in this case.

Also, I'll admit that I'm surprised about the Jackson developments. Given only what I knew about his service history, my impression of him was that he was a decent and professional guy. Apparently I may have been waaaaaaaaay off base about that.

[allegro]

Special Master, instead of a taint team, to review seized Cohen documents to make initial determination on status of privileged information.

God, I love the titles involved in this case.

Also, I'll admit that I'm surprised about the Jackson developments. Given only what I knew about his service history, my impression of him was that he was a decent and professional guy. Apparently I may have been waaaaaaaaay off base about that.

Not apparently and may have been ... holy shitballs, that guy, omg ... drunk driving, crashing cars, the Candy Man handing out drugs, screaming and yelling in drunken tirades. He withdrew his nomination.

MEANWHILE, since each day in the Trump White House is SO MUCH CIRCUS ...

Trump WENT OFF THE FUCKING RAILS this morning on Fox & Friends, the dude's on SPEED. SPEED.

When FOX & FRIENDS looks confused and bored and then cuts him off, Trump's really off the rails.

https://thinkprogress.org/fox-friend...-f4dfb8f83024/

[Jinsai]

Oh my god... that fox and friends thing.... oh my god