The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Lois]

Early photos of Melania show her with much rounder eyes. It's been speculated that the shape seen today is because of older style face lifts.

[_priapism]

Early photos of Melania show her with much rounder eyes. It's been speculated that the shape seen today is because of older style face lifts.

[Athos_131]

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Interior Secretary Zinke resigns amid investigations



#Resist

[Athos_131]

Mounting legal threats surround Trump as nearly every organization he has led is under investigation

The special counsel probe
Mueller’s investigation began in May 2017 after Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey. The special counsel’s mandate: to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 campaign and whether the Kremlin worked with Trump associates. Mueller is also examining whether the president has sought to obstruct the Russia probe.

So far, Mueller has charged 33 people. That includes 26 Russian nationals — some of whom allegedly stole emails and other data from U.S. political parties, others of whom allegedly sought to influence public opinion via phony social media postings.

Several Trump aides have also pleaded guilty.

Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, was found guilty in August of tax and bank fraud charges and pleaded guilty in September to conspiracy and obstruction charges unrelated to his work for the campaign. He agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation — though the special counsel’s office recently asserted he has been lying to investigators.

Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, admitted to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. Rick Gates, Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman, admitted to conspiracy and lying to the FBI. Former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian contacts. Cohen admitted to lying about efforts to build a Trump project in Moscow that lasted into Trump’s presidential run. All agreed to cooperate with investigators.

It’s unclear where Mueller’s inquiry is headed — and whether it will end with a spate of indictments reaching further into Trump’s world or with a written report submitted to the Justice Department.

Trump has repeatedly denied there was any “collusion” between his associates and Russia and has attacked the investigation as a fishing expedition led by politically biased prosecutors. Advisers said he has recently ramped up his attacks — hoping to undermine confidence in Mueller’s work — because he believes the probe is at a critical stage.

The campaign-finance investigation
Separately, federal prosecutors in Manhattan have pursued another investigation that emerged out of the 2016 campaign: hush-money payments Cohen made to two women who said they’d had extramarital affairs with Trump.

Cohen, who was sentenced Wednesday to three years in prison for what a judge called a “veritable smorgasbord of criminal conduct,” pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations in connection to the payments.

Cohen also named who told him to pay off the women: Trump.

“He was very concerned about how this would affect the election,” Cohen told ABC News in an interview that aired Friday.

Trump has denied he directed Cohen to break the law by buying the silence of former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal and adult-film star Stormy Daniels. He also said Cohen, as his lawyer, bore responsibility for any campaign finance violations.

“I never directed him to do anything wrong,” Trump told Fox News on Thursday. “Whatever he did, he did on his own.”

Prosecutors also revealed Wednesday they had struck a non-prosecution agreement with AMI, the company that produces the National Enquirer tabloid, for its role in the scheme.

The company admitted it had helped pay off one of Trump’s accusers during the campaign. It said it had done so in “cooperation, consultation, and concert with” one or more members of Trump’s campaign, according to court filings.

It is unclear whether prosecutors will pursue charges against campaign or Trump Organization officials as part of the case.

But at the White House, advisers have fretted that this case — and not Mueller’s — could be the biggest threat to Trump’s presidency. House Democrats have already indicated the campaign-finance allegations could be potential fodder for impeachment proceedings.

Scrutiny of the inaugural committee
The nearly $107 million donated to Trump’s inaugural committee has drawn the attention of Mueller, who has probed whether illegal foreign contributions went to help put on the festivities.

The special counsel already referred one such case to federal prosecutors in Washington. In late August, an American political consultant, W. Samuel Patten, admitted steering $50,000 from a Ukrainian politician to the inaugural committee through a straw donor.

Patten pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

On Friday, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said his panel plans to investigate possible “illicit foreign funding or involvement in the inauguration.”

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that federal prosecutors in New York are examining whether the inaugural committee misspent funds. The Washington Post has not independently confirmed that report.

Officials with the committee, which was chaired by Trump’s friend Tom Barrack, said they were in full compliance “with all applicable laws and disclosure obligations” and have not received any records requests from prosecutors.

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley told reporters this week that questions about the committee’s practices have “nothing to do with the president of the United States.”

The emoluments lawsuits
Trump also faces a pair of civil lawsuits alleging he has violated the Constitution by doing business with foreign and state governments while in office.

Trump still owns his private company, though he says he’s given up day-to-day control to his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. Since the 2016 election, Trump’s businesses have hosted parties for foreign embassies, hosted Malaysia’s prime minister and Maine’s governor, and rented more than 500 rooms to lobbyists paid by the Saudi government.

The lawsuits allege that such transactions violate a Constitutional ban on presidents taking emoluments, or payments, from foreign or state governments. One complaint was filed by congressional Democrats; the other by the Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia.

“What we want to do is be able to tie the flow of money from foreign and domestic sovereigns into Donald Trump’s pocketbook,” said Karl A. Racine (D), the D.C. attorney general. He called the emoluments clauses “our country’s first corruption law.”

The plaintiffs are seeking to have Trump barred from doing business with governments. But the more immediate threat for Trump and his company is the legal discovery process, in which the plaintiffs are seeking documents detailing his foreign customers, how much they paid — and how much wound up in the president’s pocket.

So far, Trump — who is represented by the Justice Department and a private attorney — has failed to get the cases dismissed or block discovery.

Earlier this month, the two attorneys general sent Trump’s company a raft of subpoenas. They expect to get answers early next year.

New York state inquiries
In New York, where Trump’s business is based, incoming Attorney General Letitia James (D) is preparing to launch several investigations into aspects of his company.

“We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well,” James told NBC News.

She said she wanted to look into whether Trump had violated the emoluments clause by doing business with foreign governments in New York and examine allegations detailed by the New York Times that Trump’s company engaged in questionable tax practices for decades.

New York state’s tax agency has also said it is considering an investigation into the company’s tax practices.

Earlier this year, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed suit against Trump and his three eldest children, alleging “persistently illegal conduct” at the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a case spurred by reporting by The Post in 2016.

Trump is accused of violating several state charity laws, including using his charity’s money to pay off legal settlements for his for-profit businesses. He used the foundation to buy a portrait of himself that was hung up at one of his resorts. Trump also allegedly allowed his presidential campaign to dictate the charity’s giving in 2016 — despite laws that bar charities from participating in campaigns.

The attorney general has asked for Trump to pay at least $2.8 million in penalties and restitution and that he be barred from running a charity in New York for 10 years.

Trump has called the suit politically motivated and “ridiculous.”

Last month, a New York state judge denied a request by Trump’s attorneys to throw out the suit.

Meanwhile, a defamation suit against Trump by former “Apprentice” contestant Summer Zervos has also quietly advanced through the New York courts.

A judge has allowed Zervos to seek discovery — including possibly deposing the president — as the two sides wait for a panel of New York appellate judges to rule on Trump’s latest move to block the lawsuit.

Trump has argued that, as a sitting president, he is immune from the claims in both the foundation and Zervos case. He maintains that the 1997 Supreme Court decision in Clinton v. Jones — which said that presidents do not have immunity from civil litigation — does not apply in state courts.

#Resist

[Lois]

He's a crook!

[xXshepXx]

He's a crook!

I think you misspelled cockroach.

[psiberzerker]

Well, since this had devolved into calling Goldfinger names, I'll add moron, narcissist, entitlement rapist, liar, charlatain, poltroon, bigot, male chauvinist pig, McCarthyesqe National Socialist, white supremacist, cultural appropiating ignoramus, Anti-American megalomanical malevolent despot.

Even though the last would be calling the kettle black.

[Jed_]

Inmate?

[Athos_131]

Giuliani stumbles into admitting Trump’s hush money payments were probably illegal

One comment Rudolph W. Giuliani made Sunday has been getting short shrift. In one fell swoop, he offered a false legal argument that both watered down the Trump team’s previous denials and — most important — seemed to admit to the underlying crime.

Speaking with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Giuliani sought to argue that Michael Cohen’s hush-money payments made on President Trump’s behalf can’t be campaign finance violations if they served any kind of personal purpose.

“It has to be for the sole purpose,” Giuliani said. “If there’s another purpose, it’s no longer a campaign contribution — if there’s a personal purpose."

He then suggested that the failed prosecution of John Edwards for a campaign finance violation bolstered his point: “It’s not a contribution if it’s intended for a purpose in addition to the campaign purpose. In the case of [Edwards’s lover] Rielle Hunter, right, the payment of $1.1 million was intended to shut her up and was intended to avoid embarrassment with [Edwards’s] wife and with his children.”

The first point is that this is simply not true. The law does not say that a campaign finance violation exists only if the “sole purpose” of it is to affect a campaign. In fact, it says a contribution is “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” This definition doesn’t carve out exceptions for things that were also for personal purposes (indeed, if that were the case, basically nothing would qualify). Instead, it says anything with a campaign benefit is a contribution.

In fact, the Edwards case itself disproves Giuliani’s point. Via George Conway’s, Trevor Potter’s and Neal Katyal’s Friday op-ed:

Edwards repeatedly argued that the payments were not campaign contributions because they were not made exclusively to further his campaign. The judge rejected this argument as a matter of law, ruling that a payment to a candidate’s extramarital sexual partner is a campaign contribution if “one of” the reasons the payment is made is to influence the election.

As a legal matter, that aspect of the Edwards case is what matters now — and it’s damning for Trump. It provides a precedent that other courts could follow in any prosecution arising out of the hush-money schemes Trump paid: The president could face criminal charges for conspiring with Cohen to make the payments because the evidence shows the payments were made, at least in part, for campaign purposes.

The second point is that Giuliani is moving the goal posts. The Trump team’s denials on this have been steadily watered down over time. Eventually, Giuliani and Co. admitted to the payments but said they were personal — the kind of thing Trump would have done even if it weren’t the eve of the 2016 election.

“I also think, personally, neither one of them saw it as a campaign thing; they thought of it as a personal thing,” he told The Washington Post in May. He told “Fox and Friends” the same day: “This was for personal reasons. This was — the president had been hurt personally . . . so much and the first lady, by some of the false allegations . . . It was to save their marriage — not their marriage, so much, but their reputation.”

But Giuliani doesn’t even seem to be holding that line any more. Implicit in his comments at the top is the idea that this wasn’t solely personal but, instead, served a dual purpose that included the campaign. “It’s not a contribution if it’s intended for a purpose in addition to the campaign purpose,” he said.

“In addition to the campaign purpose” means there was a campaign purpose. And when you look at actual federal election law, it suggests that Giuliani just conceded that this was a campaign finance violation that Trump has been implicated in.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

A Complete Guide to All 17 (Known) Trump and Russia Investigations

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump agrees to shut down his charity amid allegations that he used it for personal and political benefit

Underwood said that the Donald J. Trump Foundation is dissolving as her office pursues its lawsuit against the charity, Trump and his three eldest children.

Underwood said Tuesday that her investigation found “a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more.”

The shuttering comes after The Washington Post documented apparent lapses at the foundation. Trump used the charity’s money to pay legal settlements for his private business, to purchase art for one of his clubs and to make a prohibited political donation.

At one point, Trump used the charity’s money to make a $25,000 political donation to Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi (R). The charity didn’t tell the IRS about that, as required — and instead listed that donation as a gift to an unrelated charity in Kansas with a similar name. Trump’s team blamed accounting mistakes.

Federal law prohibits charities from participating in political campaigns.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Michael Flynn’s sentencing delayed after judge tells the ex-Trump adviser he may not avoid prison time

From the start, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan made clear he was infuriated by Flynn’s conduct — both in lying to the FBI while in the White House, and working to advance the interests of the Turkish government while he was a part of Trump’s campaign.

The judge seemed to take particular umbrage at the suggestion made by Flynn and his supporters, just before the sentencing, that he was duped by the FBI. Early in the hearing, Sullivan forced Flynn to admit publicly that he knew lying to the bureau was illegal, and that he was guilty of a crime. Later, the judge pointed to an American flag as he berated the former three-star general for his misdeeds.

“Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for,” the judge said. “Arguably, you sold your country out.”

The judge reminded Flynn he could get into “more trouble” if he were to lie in court, then asked, “Were you not aware that lying to FBI investigators was a crime?”

“I was aware,” Flynn said.

Sullivan asked if Flynn wanted to postpone the sentencing, or reconsider his plea.

“I would like to proceed your honor,” Flynn said.

“Because you are guilty of this offense?” Sullivan responded.

“Yes, your honor,” Flynn said.

#Resist

[Jed_]

My plans after Christmas have been changed.  I was going to camp in a National Park, but they will be closing tonight it seems.

CNN was just talking about the last of the adult day care gone from the administration.  Who are they kidding?  Adult day care was what happened during the Reagan years.  This is an out of control toddler.  No one has ever been in control but the petulant toddler.

[psiberzerker]

No one has ever been in control but the petulant toddler.

He can't even control himself!  We don't need a day-care, there's plenty of empty cells in Guantanimo Bay.  He likes Deportations so much?  Might as well get something out of the last administration's broken promise, and your taxes still paying for America's Daycare.

Impeach him, deport him, and throw away the key.

#ThanksObama!

[Katiebee]

I would rather see him taken to court for tax evasion, see him lose all his money and then be forced to live the rest of his miserable life on SSI, and the charity of others.

[psiberzerker]

live the rest of his miserable life on SSI, and the charity of others.

See, the problem with SSI is you have to pay into it.  It's not welfare, it's not payed for by tax dollars, it's payed for by Your Individual Tax Dollars.  So, he can live off of what he's personally payed into it, having his paychecks garnished, to tuck it away for retirement.  Has he ever worked a day in his life, for an employer, with a W-4, or did he inheret all of his income, and collect interest on his holdings, all his life?

If it's the latter, then he's not Elligible for Social Security Benefits.  He's gotten enough government welfare all ready, there's real working Americans that actually need it, thanks to the "Your Fired" administration.

[Athos_131]

I would rather see him taken to court for tax evasion, see him lose all his money and then be forced to live the rest of his miserable life on SSI, and the charity of others.

"You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people."

-Trading Places

#Resist

[Katiebee]

live the rest of his miserable life on SSI, and the charity of others.

See, the problem with SSI is you have to pay into it.  It's not welfare, it's not payed for by tax dollars, it's payed for by Your Individual Tax Dollars.  So, he can live off of what he's personally payed into it, having his paychecks garnished, to tuck it away for retirement.  Has he ever worked a day in his life, for an employer, with a W-4, or did he inheret all of his income, and collect interest on his holdings, all his life?

If it's the latter, then he's not Elligible for Social Security Benefits.  He's gotten enough government welfare all ready, there's real working Americans that actually need it, thanks to the "Your Fired" administration.

why do you think I want him to live off of his SSI? Because he probably never paid into it.

[psiberzerker]

why do you think I want him to live off of his SSI? Because he probably never paid into it.

Fair enough!