Attorney's file on Roger Stone, LaRouche and Russia influencing the 2016 presidential election

[Jeff Carter]

Kirk - if you feel, based on comments made in 2008, that Johnson is a racist and therefore not worth ever listening to again, then fair enough. I’m not sure his indiscretion rises to the level of Willie Horton or the Southern Strategy, but whatever. He says he was repeating gossip placed with him by senior Clinton Campaign advisor Sid Blumenthal, so it seems the ugliness is widely dispersed. Regardless, there is nothing factually incorrect in his recent published work, whereas there has been much incorrect speculation published in the legacy media for over two years now. It seems that your position, like others who have commented here, is based on your subjective experience of being personally offended by Trump’s elevation to POTUS. Which is fine as well, but I would say that acknowledging 63 million of your fellow citizens actually voted for the guy might temper your zeal to cancel their votes.

 

On 5/4/2019 at 12:34 AM, Bob Ness said:

Whether you or anyone else like it or not, the Russians were engaging in hostile activities toward us and the FBI was alerted and followed up with an investigation. It's been proven, over and over again, that the people who were investigated and charged were either convicted in court or plead guilty did so because they were guilty.

 

Bob, none of the persons convicted or who pled guilty were Russian nor were their convictions stemmed from any “hostile activity” coordinated with Russians.

 

“The FBI responded to suspicious election activity by a foreign adversary that has done the same thing in other countries.”

The only acknowledged activity were the Facebook ads placed by the St Petersburg “xxxxx factory”.

Whether these ads represented a routine commercial click-bait operation or were designed to “sow chaos and division” in America remains debatable. The culprit organization claims the former, while Mueller and Congressional figures claim the latter. If it was the latter, then it was a woefully marginal enterprise, as the statistics prove, such that claims it represented some sort of “attack on democracy” (as Clinton herself continued to maintain just last week) appears wildly overstated. The overstatements are, in fact, so crazy that the premise has entered “precious bodily fluid” territory. The company involved has actually hired lawyers who are currently facing obstacles in the discovery process.

The other alleged activity - the DNC “hack” - was not in fact “investigated” by the FBI, a notable omission. It appears that all of the investigative work which informs the indictment was done by a private firm hired by the DNC. Further, key persons directly involved with the allegations were never interviewed, and such persons reject the prosecutor’s position. So there is nothing “proven and non-negotiable” about these indictments - other than the fact that such indictments do exist.

I don’t know why Joint defense agreements were set up in this case, or why these persons would have to “harmonize their stories”. These agreements have certainly led to much speculation by various commentators - commentators who have been articulating endless streams of baseless speculation for over  two years now. All that can be said is after Mueller’s rather thorough investigation, none of the persons subject to JDAs have any nefarious ties to hostile Russian agents.

[Douglas Caddy]

Hundreds of ex-federal prosecutors claim evidence shows Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_obstruction-120pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans&utm_term=.41d3da385ce4

[Cliff Varnell]

3 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Hundreds of ex-federal prosecutors claim evidence shows Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_obstruction-120pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans&utm_term=.41d3da385ce4

For those who can't access the WA Post:

Hundreds of Former Federal Prosecutors Say Trump Committed Obstruction of Justice Felonies

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/federal-prosecutors-letter-trump-obstruction.html

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

 Which is fine as well, but I would say that acknowledging 63 million of your fellow citizens actually voted for the guy might temper your zeal to cancel their votes.

Then think about GOP politicians who disenfranchised 7 million mostly minority voters thru Voter ID laws and voter roll purge programs; and then think about how the Republicans 20 years ago wanted to cancel the 1996 vote and impeach a guy for lying about blow jobs.

66 million voters picked Hillary in a rigged election.

Funny how none of the Trump apologists acknowledge this -- or that the FBI stalled Trump in the first place.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

18 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

You never explained why we can't have purple voting fingers.

You've never acknowledged James Comey and the New York office of the FBI tipping the election to Trump..

Only the voters and the courts can stop the GOP drive to fundamentally change our democracy to a politicians-pick-the-voters model.

Minority rule is what the GOP is all about.

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

You don't actually care about minority voting rights.

That's not what I meant by "minority rule."

The GOP wants 45% of the country to dictate to 55%.

Quote

As I said, I don't think voter IDs are needed.

A simple purple finger would eliminate my concern that some people, minority or otherwise, might vote more than once.

Obviously, Democrats on a National Ticket are at a severe disadvantage if a voter can only vote once.

 The Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 Prez elections.

They won the House by a margin of 9 million votes in 2018.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Quote

 

That is why you would rather make noise about Voter ID laws than actually accept my entirely simple solution to:

1. Drop Voter ID Laws

2. Give everyone who voted a purple finger.

It seems like an easy compromise, but of course I understand it does not accomplish your actual goal of rigging elections, as opposed to your stated goal of standing up for minority rights.

Says the man who defends rigging elections.

Quote

You are the personification of a guilt ridden white liberal. It's what makes a "racist" Trump supporter like me less pernicious than a Social Justice Warrior like you.

And you are the personification of a mark who first was conned by the Bushes and now you're conned by Trump.

Quote

As for Comey, I look forward to his testimony at his trial.

When do you think Trump will pardon him for the favor?

Cliff, you and HRC are the only ones pushing the Comey threw the election to Trump narrative. At least Hillary has the excuse of being under the constant influence of anti-seizure medications.

Comey admits he threw the election to Trump.

At least he has that much intellectual honesty -- unlike the easy marks who fell for it.

Edited May 7, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

2. Give everyone who voted a purple finger.

Tens of millions of Americans vote by mail.

 

[Bob Ness]

12 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Kirk - if you feel, based on comments made in 2008, that Johnson is a racist and therefore not worth ever listening to again, then fair enough. I’m not sure his indiscretion rises to the level of Willie Horton or the Southern Strategy, but whatever. He says he was repeating gossip placed with him by senior Clinton Campaign advisor Sid Blumenthal, so it seems the ugliness is widely dispersed. Regardless, there is nothing factually incorrect in his recent published work, whereas there has been much incorrect speculation published in the legacy media for over two years now. It seems that your position, like others who have commented here, is based on your subjective experience of being personally offended by Trump’s elevation to POTUS. Which is fine as well, but I would say that acknowledging 63 million of your fellow citizens actually voted for the guy might temper your zeal to cancel their votes.

 

On 5/4/2019 at 12:34 AM, Bob Ness said:

Whether you or anyone else like it or not, the Russians were engaging in hostile activities toward us and the FBI was alerted and followed up with an investigation. It's been proven, over and over again, that the people who were investigated and charged were either convicted in court or plead guilty did so because they were guilty. JEFF THEY WERE GUILTY!

Bob, none of the persons convicted or who pled guilty were Russian nor were their convictions stemmed from any “hostile activity” COORDINATED WITH RUSSIANS. IN CAPS NOW I DIDN'T SAY THAT. NONE OF THE RUSSIANS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO COURT HAVE THEY?

“The FBI responded to suspicious election activity by a foreign adversary that has done the same thing in other countries.”

The only acknowledged activity were the Facebook ads placed by the St Petersburg “xxxxx factory”. BS please re-read what I said.

Whether these ads represented a routine commercial click-bait operation or were designed to “sow chaos and division” in America remains debatable. The culprit organization claims the former, while Mueller and Congressional figures claim the latter. If it was the latter, then it was a woefully marginal enterprise, as the statistics prove, such that claims it represented some sort of “attack on democracy” (as Clinton herself continued to maintain just last week) appears wildly overstated. The overstatements are, in fact, so crazy that the premise has entered “precious bodily fluid” territory. The company involved has actually hired lawyers who are currently facing obstacles in the discovery process.

The other alleged activity - the DNC “hack” - was not in fact “investigated” by the FBI, a notable omission. It appears that all of the investigative work which informs the indictment was done by a private firm hired by the DNC. Further, key persons directly involved with the allegations were never interviewed, and such persons reject the prosecutor’s position. So there is nothing “proven and non-negotiable” about these indictments - other than the fact that such indictments do exist.

I don’t know why Joint defense agreements were set up in this case, or why these persons would have to “harmonize their stories”. These agreements have certainly led to much speculation by various commentators - commentators who have been articulating endless streams of baseless speculation for over  two years now. All that can be said is after Mueller’s rather thorough investigation, none of the persons subject to JDAs have any nefarious ties to hostile Russian agents.

Jeff - not going to say it again. Read it or don't comment. You're commenting on something I didn't say.

[Bob Ness]

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/395122-trumps-joint-defense-agreement-with-cohen-ending-report

I guess this JDA did not harmonize that well?  Or will you say he would rather go to jail than reveal his role in Russia Gate? Corsi has one also.

I don't know if you know this, but the White House has 32 of these in play right now.  Its common for lawyers to try and do this since it allows them to garner information about certain cases that may be forming. Its like an advanced form of discovery.  I mean, if you are a White House lawyer, you try and form these as part of  your job.

Now, are you going to say that there were 32 people involved in Russia Gate?  And somehow, with that many targets, Mueller could not find anyone to indict except people like George P.?  And xxxxx farms in Russia?

 

Jim, putting words in my mouth should be left for others. Cohen's agreement came about as the result of a New York State prosecution which removes the protection he would have received from a President floating pardons around. He had no choice and I think you know that.

It's not "advanced discovery" in the case of a person who has no legal jeopardy, such as an unindictable President of the United States, who can pardon people. To clarify: The JDAs used by The President of the United States with several convicted felons, including Manafort, who had agreed to cooperate with Mueller, clearly crosses the line of ethical restraint by Manafort and Trump's attorneys. Manafort's switch from cooperating witness to hostile smells to high heaven and I don't think I have to explain to you why. Other people who don't get it can wait for the likely pardon. Witnesses appear to have been allowed to post facto harmonize their stories through JDAs because by golly, guess who's on the same sheet of music? The head of the DOJ and FBI!!! Mueller's boss! Hows that for democracy!

Do you have any doubt Trump would have ordered that?

[Jeff Carter]

Bob, I don’t deserve the angry ALL-CAPS, particularly as I did respond to exactly what you said, working from the logic of your sentence structure:  Russians - hostile activity - FBI - investigation - convicted in court - guilty.

The guilty pleas and convictions have nothing to do with “hostile activity” or “Russians”, so there is no culmination to your logic. You claim the “Russian hostile activity” is “proven and non-negotiable”: and I pointed out it is neither “proven” or established fact. You responded with angry ALL-CAPS claiming I I have mis-represented what you have said. But I don’t think I have.

[Cliff Varnell]

NYT obtained Trump’s tax returns — which document potential fraud and exactly how awful the president is at taxes

 

 

President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to keep his finances from undergoing public scrutiny continued to fail on Tuesday as The New York Times published a bombshell report based on his tax returns.

“The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade,” the newspaper noted. “In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer, The Times found when it compared his results with detailed information the I.R.S. compiles on an annual sampling of high-income earners. His core business losses in 1990 and 1991 — more than $250 million each year — were more than double those of the nearest taxpayers in the I.R.S. information for those years.”

 

Trump avoided paying taxes for eight of the ten years because of how much money he lost on business.

[Cliff Varnell]

14 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

There are three ways to not pay taxes. Defer, Avoid, and Evade. The first two are legal. The last is illegal. 

Under the US tax law, one avoids a tax by not engaging in a taxable transaction. I avoid the Capital Gains tax by not buying and selling equities. Trump avoided paying taxes because losses are not taxed.

Since the Tax records are from over 30 years ago, in all likelihood, Trump deferred paying taxes until some point in the future. We know this because he is still alive and still has lots of money. That is, you can not avoid taxes indefinitely and  simultaneously increase your wealth.

Maybe you meant Trump evaded taxes. That would be illegal. Is that what you meant? If so, can you point to where and when that activity occurred? One generally can’t tell if somone is evading taxes from looking at stacks of returns, but maybe you can.

I forgot to link the article I posted:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/nyt-obtained-trumps-tax-returns-which-document-potential-fraud-and-exactly-how-awful-the-president-is-at-taxes/

[Kirk Gallaway]

Robert said:

It must be so super secret that,

• a cabal of partisan current and ex-DOJ lawyers,
• the full resources of the FBI,
• an unknown number of CIA agents, operatives, and contractors,
• at least one FBI/CIA "liaison" named Peter Strzok,
• 17 US Intelligence Agencies (presumably including the ones already mentioned), 
• an IRS that was never shy under the Obama administration about sharing personal information about conservative groups, and;
• reams of Ivy League educated, journalists, reporters, and network producers,

can't seem to find the goods on Trump.

 

Maybe the Government isn't in Deep state collusion as it took  private investigators to uncover a billion dollars of  loss on Trump's taxes. Wow there goes that theory!.  Then there's this BS diversion.

Robert wheeler says;

There are three ways to not pay taxes. Defer, Avoid, and Evade. The first two are legal. The last is illegal.  (Wow that's profound!)

Under the US tax law, one avoids a tax by not engaging in a taxable transaction. I avoid the Capital Gains tax by not buying and selling equities. Trump avoided paying taxes because losses are not taxed.Since the Tax records are from over 30 years ago, in all likelihood, Trump deferred paying taxes until some point in the future. We know this because he is still alive and still has lots of money. That is, you can not avoid taxes indefinitely and  simultaneously increase your wealth.

Maybe you meant Trump evaded taxes. That would be illegal. Is that what you meant? If so, can you point to where and when that activity occurred? One generally can’t tell if somone is evading taxes from looking at stacks of returns, but maybe you can.

No forensic financeis not easy. But it it's not impossible to see where there's smoke , there's fire.

But I love this statement.

Mr finance Robert Wheeler says: I avoid the Capital Gains tax by not buying and selling equities.

Wow, You sound like quite the heavy roller, Robert, so it sounds like you could invest but you don't invest because you're afraid of paying capital gains????. So what do you do with your money, put it under your mattress because  everything's eventually going to fall apart since we went off the Gold Standard?

Then the awkward segue back to the  same old diversions  Billy Binney, Russian hacks, Peter Strzok. (snore) you forgot HRC.

So Trump defrauding our tax system, not paying his taxes,  and chiseling investors by not paying  paying his debts are not at all concerning to you, Robert,??? Is that because as a disillusioned Bush supporter turned romantic outlaw,  you've tied your fortunes to a star, (whose actually a bungling fraud, now whoring the world for questionable types who can provide some sort of temporary relief or diversion from his ineptness)  and now you simply won't be able to let go?

What qualifies you to opine on any of this at all?

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[Bob Ness]

15 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bob, I don’t deserve the angry ALL-CAPS, particularly as I did respond to exactly what you said, working from the logic of your sentence structure:  Russians - hostile activity - FBI - investigation - convicted in court - guilty.

The guilty pleas and convictions have nothing to do with “hostile activity” or “Russians”, so there is no culmination to your logic. You claim the “Russian hostile activity” is “proven and non-negotiable”: and I pointed out it is neither “proven” or established fact. You responded with angry ALL-CAPS claiming I I have mis-represented what you have said. But I don’t think I have.

I'm sorry Jeff but I can't waste my time on this. I can't get the time back! You're an intelligent person but insist on responding to something I'm not saying. This is my quote from the relevant post:

"Whether you or anyone else like it or not, the Russians were engaging in hostile activities toward us and the FBI was alerted and followed up with an investigation." You're including "coordinated with Russians".

I didn't say in the relevant post those verdicts and pleas related directly to the Russians or their activities. I'm simply pointing out the fact that they were guilty.

It is established fact that the Russians have taken these measures in: 2014 Ukrainian elections, 2016 Dutch referendum on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, 2016 Brexit referendum, 2016 US elections, 2017 Catalan independence referendum, 2017 German elections, 2017 French elections, 2018 Italian elections,Georgia (2008, ongoing), Ukraine (2014, ongoing: annexation of Crimea, invasion of eastern Ukraine), Montenegro (2016 coup plot) - these are only the quick ones I could find. The Canadians suspect the Russians of interference and several other countries do also but I'm not going to look any more for you. Please don't throw Bill "Fortran" Binney at me either. He's been out of the loop for a long time and if he's the only expert credible enough to counter these assertions over the entire intelligence community and their associated overseas partners and domestic contractors it's not good enough.

Here is another piece of information should you choose to look at it:

https://documents.trendmicro.com/assets/wp/wp-two-years-of-pawn-storm.pdf

I'm not going to argue this any more because it seems to me you don't want to be reasonable and it's almost like you're trolling. Your statement that the Russians put up a few Facebook posts is ridiculous - straight out of PRAVDA. These things are established well beyond anything you're able to counter with. When you say that these issues are not established you are quite simply wrong. End of story.

Again, apologies (want to be civil here) but I was angry at that point.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Douglas Caddy]

The New York Times article on Trump's tax debacle:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html