Cliff Varnell Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 The Southern District of New York is running a RICO investigation of the Trump Crime Family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 https://crooksandliars.com/2019/02/michael-cohen-not-here-jim-jordans-lies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Mr Wheeler, With all due respect, that is Mr. Club for Grwoth, Jim Jordan you are quoting: Mr. "I didn't know the coach was molesting young boys on the wrestling team". I would rather let the dust clear first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: BTW, if Cohen was honest, and it would be pretty stupid if he was not, then he harpooned two parts of the Steele Dossier: The Golden Shower and the Prague meet up. I have to say, he made the GOP look pretty silly. Just watching the morning part I was captivated. Looking right at the camera "I'm not your fixer anymore". If I recall right one congressman thanked him for maintaining his composure. Another commented on him having nothing to loose by telling the truth at this point. He did further implicate Roger Stone though without proof that conversation happened the two days before the release or that Stone talked directly to Assange. I think that some of the best questioning of the day was by Congresswoman Plaskett of the Dominican Republic. Direct, to the point, he answered directly, quickly, naming names. She answered quickly getting it in the record, with a comment about these are the people we need to be talking to. I've googled Plaskett questions Cohen and all I get is her earlier eye roll. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/02/27/michael-cohen-hearing-jim-jordan-sparks-stacey-plaskett-eye-roll/3004427002/ Edited February 28, 2019 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: The “Kremlin operative” was also Manafort’s business partner in Ukraine, since 2005. Once CIA always CIA. Think it's any different with the GRU? 4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: There’s nothing sinister about meeting with one’s long-term business partner, or even sinister about sharing polling data since their business was a political consultancy. Non sequitur. How is a Russian military intelligence man not sinister? 4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: The polling data has been described as mostly publicly available information mixed with some data private to the Trump campaign. There’s nothing “sensitive” or secret about it. There is if the data is used to target swing districts with foreign-sourced propaganda. It's called conspiracy to defraud the United States. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-muellers-full-indictment-against-12-russian-officers-for-election-interference The extent of your exoneration of the Russians indicted by Mueller... Exonerated because. Warren Commission. 4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: The other thing about this alleged “operative” is, before joining Manafort’s firm, he worked for almost ten years, in Moscow, at the International Republican Institute. The IRI is a “democracy promotion” organization, financed by the State Department, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). (See http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/international-republican-institute-not-promoting-democracy). He was known as "Kostya, the guy from the GRU". https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/paul-manafort-ukraine-kiev-russia-konstantin-kilimnik-227181 4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: Here’s Philip Agee on how the IRI functions as part of the NED network, and how these organizations link with the CIA. - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4332.htm How is it possible the IRI would hire and keep for almost ten years, and he apparently ran the Moscow office for the last four years, a man who FBI agents “assess” has “ties” to the GRU (according to Mueller)? From the above Politico article: “It was like ‘Kostya, the guy from the GRU’ — that’s how we talked about him,” said a political operative who worked in Moscow at the time. “The institute was informed that he was GRU, but it didn’t matter at the time because they weren’t doing anything sensitive.” [/q] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 It's worse than that. Pedophile enabler Jordan first denied he had earlier heard of this doctor Straus's molesting of young boys, but when finally confronted that a third party said the this Doctors molestations had been discussed among faculty including Jordan on a regular basis. Jordan not too imaginatively took a page from his President and called it dismissively "locker room talk". Yeah, so this what counts for "locker room" talk in Jordan's world? He's even taken a page from Trump in his confidence at being able to get away with an infantile level of coverup. This guy was angling to be the Speaker of the House! https://youtu.be/DXbAv9F2JuM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 So this is why Plaskett rolled her eyes at Jordan over him judging Cohen's ethics or veracity at that point? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/03/jim-jordan-accused-ignoring-sexual-abuse-allegations-ohio-state/754455002/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: Once CIA always CIA. Think it's any different with the GRU? Non sequitur. How is a Russian military intelligence man not sinister? There is if the data is used to target swing districts with foreign-sourced propaganda. It's called conspiracy to defraud the United States. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-muellers-full-indictment-against-12-russian-officers-for-election-interference The extent of your exoneration of the Russians indicted by Mueller... Exonerated because. Warren Commission. He was known as "Kostya, the guy from the GRU". https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/paul-manafort-ukraine-kiev-russia-konstantin-kilimnik-227181 From the above Politico article: “It was like ‘Kostya, the guy from the GRU’ — that’s how we talked about him,” said a political operative who worked in Moscow at the time. “The institute was informed that he was GRU, but it didn’t matter at the time because they weren’t doing anything sensitive.” [/q] This is nonsense. Mueller’s inference that the alleged “operative” is a Russian military intelligence agent is based on nothing but assertion, dependant on the concept that the Manafort Ukraine consultancy was in support of a “pro-Russian” political faction, which is not in fact true. The Manafort political consultancy was actually directing the Yanukovich government towards accepting an EU association agreement, which was not in Russia’s national interest. This point is clearly supported by the documented evidence. The concept that someone known as “Kostya, the guy from the GRU” could hold a significant position in the International Republican Institute is without foundation. The person in question, after the 2014 coup, travelled back and forth from Ukraine to the USA frequently without any issue and was known within the US embassy to the Ukraine during this time. So the idea that he is some kind of deep cover GRU agent is highly questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said: This is nonsense. Mueller’s inference that the alleged “operative” is a Russian military intelligence agent is based on nothing but assertion, dependant on the concept that the Manafort Ukraine consultancy was in support of a “pro-Russian” political faction, which is not in fact true. The Manafort political consultancy was actually directing the Yanukovich government towards accepting an EU association agreement, which was not in Russia’s national interest. This point is clearly supported by the documented evidence. The concept that someone known as “Kostya, the guy from the GRU” could hold a significant position in the International Republican Institute is without foundation. The person in question, after the 2014 coup, travelled back and forth from Ukraine to the USA frequently without any issue and was known within the US embassy to the Ukraine during this time. So the idea that he is some kind of deep cover GRU agent is highly questionable. He wasn't in the GRU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 A document generated by the Mueller investigation asserts this person is GRU dependent on an assessment by FBI special agents. But the content of the assessment is not known and did not feature in the recent sentencing document. Other than that, former colleagues have spoken to reporters and also assert he was GRU and that his status was common knowledge. Yet this individual’s successful 20+ year professional career ensued in a milieu in which being a known GRU agent would be both unpopular and reason for dismissal. Other colleagues suggest rumours of GRU affiliation served to spice up his credentials as someone with inside connections related to his political consultancy work in Ukraine. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/mueller-investigation-trump-russia-collusion-konstantin-kilimnik-manfort-a8795591.html So skepticism is warranted. That has not prevented reporters from, for example, Salon and The New Yorker - who one might believe utilize professional journalism standards - from weaving complex conspiracy theories based on the GRU and polling data threads. These theories have been encouraged by public statements from the Mueller investigation. Here is recent reporting by CNN (Weissman is a prosecutor working for Mueller): But, prosecutors say, Manafort met with Kilimnik several times throughout 2017 and even into 2018, and discussed Ukrainian policy again and again. "This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel's office is investigating," Weissmann said at the hearing. "There is an in-person meeting at an unusual time for somebody who is the campaign chairman to be spending time, and to be doing it in person." https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/paul-manafort-hearing-kilimnik/index.html But Manafort and Kilimnik were long-term business partners running a political consultancy in Ukraine. So having meetings and discussing Ukraine policy is entirely routine professional activity. But the prosecutor here is painting it as “unusual” and suspicious to the point of being the “heart” of the investigation itself. These types of statements encourage an active misunderstanding of events, and occur with frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Couteau Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said: I've googled Plaskett questions Cohen and all I get is her earlier eye roll. Ron, Thanks for this. Here's a video of her excellent questioning: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: A document generated by the Mueller investigation asserts this person is GRU dependent on an assessment by FBI special agents. But the content of the assessment is not known and did not feature in the recent sentencing document. Other than that, former colleagues have spoken to reporters and also assert he was GRU and that his status was common knowledge. Yet this individual’s successful 20+ year professional career ensued in a milieu in which being a known GRU agent would be both unpopular and reason for dismissal. Other colleagues suggest rumours of GRU affiliation served to spice up his credentials as someone with inside connections related to his political consultancy work in Ukraine. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/mueller-investigation-trump-russia-collusion-konstantin-kilimnik-manfort-a8795591.html So skepticism is warranted. That has not prevented reporters from, for example, Salon and The New Yorker - who one might believe utilize professional journalism standards - from weaving complex conspiracy theories based on the GRU and polling data threads. These theories have been encouraged by public statements from the Mueller investigation. Here is recent reporting by CNN (Weissman is a prosecutor working for Mueller): But, prosecutors say, Manafort met with Kilimnik several times throughout 2017 and even into 2018, and discussed Ukrainian policy again and again. "This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel's office is investigating," Weissmann said at the hearing. "There is an in-person meeting at an unusual time for somebody who is the campaign chairman to be spending time, and to be doing it in person." https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/paul-manafort-hearing-kilimnik/index.html But Manafort and Kilimnik were long-term business partners running a political consultancy in Ukraine. So having meetings and discussing Ukraine policy is entirely routine professional activity. But the prosecutor here is painting it as “unusual” and suspicious to the point of being the “heart” of the investigation itself. These types of statements encourage an active misunderstanding of events, and occur with frequency. Jeff ,just to clue you what's going on, a strong majority of the American populace thinks their President is a crook. Among those most think he's probably the most corrupt President in the nation's history. I don't know how it will play out. I know you're a one topic guy, you want to convince people that Russia and Putin are innocent, still haggling about the Steele dossier of 2016. That's fine. There's a wealth of at least circumstantial evidence involving even the family that the most of the country can't ignore. Dumb masses that we are. . But even that doesn't matter anymore. You don't have enough of an assortment of fingers to plug every hole in this dyke. No offense but you're like a dog barking at the moon. Robert said: I was hoping AOC would challenge his assertion he was never in Prague even though the Steele Dossier said he was. Robert maybe you don't really know who AOC is, and she like many of the rest us, doesn't give a sh-t. Edited March 1, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 (edited) How many American adults watched the Cohen testimony live on CNN on Wednesday? If even just parts of this? Millions? Ten million? More? When you include replays of Cohen's testimony the rest of the evening on every main TV news outlet that working Americans who missed the live broadcast could see, the viewership truly must have been close to ten million or more. That's a lot of viewers. Equal to or maybe even more than what a highly anticipated 60 Minutes program draws in. That's a huge chunk of Americans finally seeing and hearing many of the most troubling and damning charges against Trump graphically and all at once and through someone who, although viciously attacked as not credible, was in fact extremely close to Trump for ten years in a top 4 or 5 inner circle way, and who you can't easily dismiss because of this fact. And most who viewed this committee hearing Cohen testimony were probably intelligently aware and concerned enough to understand it's importance in helping Americans determine whether President Trump is truly as bad as his critics have been saying all along. Trump tweeted in his whining way that it was shameful that the hearing was conducted while he was off doing more important stuff overseas. That and calling Cohen a xxxx was about all Trump could say. Trump is totally aware of how damning this hearing was. He knows numbers. He knows that despite the minority Republican committee members rabid personal integrity attacks against Cohen, just the massive exposure of Cohen's explosive charges to a nationwide audience of millions at one time is more damaging to him and his presidency than any other single testimony or book or negative news article, report or editorial so far. Cohen's testimony is clearly as damaging to Trump as John Dean's was to Nixon during Watergate. The Republican's with their Trump protecting majorities in the Senate and Congress before this last election were able to prevent hearings presenting witnesses to Trump's wrong doings. But now with the Democrat majority Congress...no more. Now, with just "one" Trump whistle blower so far, look at the damage. For the first time, I sense the Trump presidency is in real trouble. To a point that any more huge national audience reported evidence and testimony that keeps bolstering the findings of his corruption may turn into an unstoppable dike breaking force like the one that brought Nixon to his resignation knees. If Republicans begin to jump ship on Trump and more than just a handful, his resignation will probably be likely. And have any of you here checked out this new Trump COO character that Cohen repeatedly mentioned named Mathew Calamari? OMG! Talk about a dark and shady looking character. Right out of the GODFATHER central casting! A truly intimidating looking person. What "fixes" has THIS scary looking guy carried out for the Trump family? One can only imagine. Story is Trump saw this Calamari character beating the tar out of someone and liked what he saw and hired him to work for him personally. Reported also that Calamari pledged his loyalty to Trump to an ominous degree according to one source that hasn't been vetted as of yet. Edited March 1, 2019 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 (edited) Robert, if even 1 million had no choice in watching the hearing because it was all that was on in airports, the total of 7.2 million viewers is still very significant relative to a normal audience of news that isn't so dramatic. And do the surveyors of this viewership count just one viewer for every TV or every household? I'd add another 2 or more million to that total where there are "two or more people" in a household and if the hearing was on TV in those households. And what about "internet" viewership? Was that included into this equation of how many American viewed at least some of the testimony and hearing? This is now a huge number all by itself. I even listened to it on my car radio while driving around doing errands during the day. I am sure Rush Limbaugh and many other right wing radio personalities also went off on the more controversial aspects of the hearing. The point is that Cohen and his damning testimony was watched or at least heard of ( many specific charges) by enough Americans that it represents a much broader awareness of Trump's most damaging charges by the American public versus any other "single news day" in the last two years. And that greater awareness surely breeds greater doubt and suspicion. You can't downplay this fact to a meaningless degree. Trump's reputation for honesty,integrity and corruption took a massive " character and credibility crash" hit yesterday because of the Michael Cohen testimony with documentation. And by the way, if you Wiki the African American Trump/government employee ( Lynne Patton ) that was positioned standing behind Mark Meadows for dramatic effect in Meadow's animated counter attack against Cohen's claims of Trump being racist, you will see some real eye opening facts that reveal her to be less than an unbiased, highly qualified and non-largess owing job appointee source in claiming Trump's good racial character versus Cohen's charges. The last sentence in the Lynne Patton Wiki bio: Personal life[edit] Patton says she has struggled with substance abuse and addiction, and publicly praised the Trump family for standing by her through tough times.[38] Edited March 6, 2019 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 On 2/28/2019 at 9:04 PM, Rob Couteau said: Ron, Thanks for this. Here's a video of her excellent questioning: Thank you for posting this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now