CNN Trump/Giuliani associates arrested

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

excerpts

Two men connected to Trump's/Rudy Giuliani's efforts to dig up
dirt in Ukraine on Joe Biden were arrested Wednesday on criminal
charges, according to a US attorney's office.


The charges against the men suggest Giuliani's push on Ukraine
and President Donald Trump's receptiveness to it had ties to an
illegal effort to influence US politics and policy using foreign
funds. The indictment involves two people central to the
impeachment inquiry in the House.


detailed article at
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/guliani-client-arrested-campaign-finance/index.html

[FPP]

Are felonies even crimes any more?

--
And now, another in a series of Mental Health Bulletins:
"... If Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom,
consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the
Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)." -Donald J. Trump 10-7-19

Next up: "Kneel before ZOD!"

[Adam H. Kerman]

There aren't enough details in the story to explain how foreign monies
were contributed as campaign funds.

The Miami Herald story that CNN cites is a lot better.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article235501772.html

It still doesnt't explain how it's known that the campaign donation was
foreign, just that a nonprofit campaign finance reform group said that
the contributor, Global Energy Producers, didn't have any assets large
enough to make the contribution from.

[danny burstein]

[snip]

Federal press release:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/lev-parnas-and-igor-fruman-charged-conspiring-violate-straw-and-foreign-donor-bans


--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[Adam H. Kerman]

danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:

>[snip]
>>>Two men connected to Trump's/Rudy Giuliani's efforts to dig up
>>>dirt in Ukraine on Joe Biden were arrested Wednesday on criminal
>>>charges, according to a US attorney's office.

>>>The charges against the men suggest Giuliani's push on Ukraine
>>>and President Donald Trump's receptiveness to it had ties to an
>>>illegal effort to influence US politics and policy using foreign
>>>funds. The indictment involves two people central to the
>>>impeachment inquiry in the House.

>>>detailed article at
>>>https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/guliani-client-arrested-campaign-finance/index.html

>>There aren't enough details in the story to explain how foreign monies
>>were contributed as campaign funds.

>>The Miami Herald story that CNN cites is a lot better.
>>https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article235501772.html

>>It still doesnt't explain how it's known that the campaign donation was
>>foreign, just that a nonprofit campaign finance reform group said that
>>the contributor, Global Energy Producers, didn't have any assets large
>>enough to make the contribution from.

>Federal press release:

>https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/lev-parnas-and-igor-fruman-charged-conspiring-violate-straw-and-foreign-donor-bans

Hm. The straw donor scheme,

Rather, the donations came from a private lending transaction
between FRUMAN and third parties

isn't explained and it's not explicitly stated that "third parties" are
Russians or Russian-sympathetic Ukrainians.

The pot for foreign donations scheme is kind of confusing as well.

Thanks

[trotsky]

On 10/10/19 5:48 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/10/19 2:48 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> excerpts
>>
>> Two men connected to Trump's/Rudy Giuliani's efforts to dig up
>> dirt in Ukraine on Joe Biden were arrested Wednesday on criminal
>> charges, according to a US attorney's office.
>>
>>
>> The charges against the men suggest Giuliani's push on Ukraine
>> and President Donald Trump's receptiveness to it had ties to an
>> illegal effort to influence US politics and policy using foreign
>> funds. The indictment involves two people central to the
>> impeachment inquiry in the House.
>>
>>
>> detailed article at
>> https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/guliani-client-arrested-campaign-finance/index.html
>>
>>
>
> Are felonies even crimes any more?
>

Not when Trump is involved.

[Shadow]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:48:15 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/10/19 2:48 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> excerpts
>>
>> Two men connected to Trump's/Rudy Giuliani's efforts to dig up
>> dirt in Ukraine on Joe Biden were arrested Wednesday on criminal
>> charges, according to a US attorney's office.
>>
>>
>> The charges against the men suggest Giuliani's push on Ukraine
>> and President Donald Trump's receptiveness to it had ties to an
>> illegal effort to influence US politics and policy using foreign
>> funds. The indictment involves two people central to the
>> impeachment inquiry in the House.
>>
>>
>> detailed article at
>> https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/guliani-client-arrested-campaign-finance/index.html
>>
>
>Are felonies even crimes any more?

Trump gave his *word* he doesn't even know them, so I can't
see how he can be implicated:

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/majority-of-voters-now-want-donald-trump-impeached-removed-poll/news-story/4c3fa3a4aea54603f1d29da54b3e991c

The official photos are obviously "fake".
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[FPP]

It looks like Pelosi's gamble is paying off. Not only did it change my
mind 180 degrees - but it seems to have had the same effect on a
majority of voters, judging by the polls.

The Republicans I see on TV look like scared rabbits. Well, the
vulnerable ones anyway.
I think this approach is working where the more complicated Mueller
report didn't.

And the Dems did it all without managing to look desperate. And the
beauty of it was that Trump HANDED the evidence right to them.

--
"You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all
so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe
you." - Donald J. Trump
(To Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes in response to the question of why he
attacks the press so often.)

[NoBody]

I think it's meant to be confusing.

[trotsky]

On 10/11/19 6:49 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/11/19 6:30 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 10/10/19 5:48 PM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 10/10/19 2:48 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> excerpts
>>>>
>>>> Two men connected to Trump's/Rudy Giuliani's efforts to dig up
>>>> dirt in Ukraine on Joe Biden were arrested Wednesday on criminal
>>>> charges, according to a US attorney's office.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The charges against the men suggest Giuliani's push on Ukraine
>>>> and President Donald Trump's receptiveness to it had ties to an
>>>> illegal effort to influence US politics and policy using foreign
>>>> funds. The indictment involves two people central to the
>>>> impeachment inquiry in the House.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> detailed article at
>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/guliani-client-arrested-campaign-finance/index.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are felonies even crimes any more?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not when Trump is involved.
>
> It looks like Pelosi's gamble is paying off.

What gamble is that, waiting to see how many dead bodies would pile up?

  Not only did it change my
> mind 180 degrees - but it seems to have had the same effect on a
> majority of voters, judging by the polls.

Are you sure those poll numbers aren't from Trump's ongoing descent into
insanity?

> The Republicans I see on TV look like scared rabbits.  Well, the
> vulnerable ones anyway.

The Republicans are scared because they were all riding the Trump train
and are about to fall under the wheels and get chopped in half
metaphorically speaking. The entire party look like a bunch of
fuckheads even at the beginning of the "impeachment inquiry". But this
inquiry should've happened the same day the Mueller Report dropped.

> I think this approach is working where the more complicated Mueller
> report didn't.

I see, so they could focus on any one of the numerous infractions
outlined in the Mueller Report and instead waiting for Trump to
incriminate himself was best? That's called luck, not strategy.
Trump's big fat fucking mouth handed Pelosi a get out of purgatory free
card.

> And the Dems did it all without managing to look desperate.  And the
> beauty of it was that Trump HANDED the evidence right to them.

Sure and the dead Kurds and abused migrant children in concentration
camps are just "collateral damage". Our dragging our feet doesn't make
us complicit at all, right? Politics uber alles!

[FPP]

Lots wrong with that... first, only one American is responsible for the
fate of the Kurds. One and one alone.

When Pelois resisted the drive for impeachment, the vast majority of the
public wasn't there, and the weren't going to get there with the Mueller
Report. That was a dud with the unwashed masses.

Now, the majority of Americans not only approve of impeachment, they
agree that Trump should BE REMOVED.

If you don't think that's a clear fucking win for Pelosi, your kidding
yourself. Mueller was a dead end. Not because of what it revealed...
because it did a great job at that. But it was sabotaged by Right wing
media, the DOJ and the AG, who did a masterful job at obscuring
everything in it.

[trotsky]

Thank God people didn't think that way during the Holocaust. Schindler
would have took his list and peed on it.

> When Pelois resisted the drive for impeachment, the vast majority of the
> public wasn't there, and the weren't going to get there with the Mueller
> Report.  That was a dud with the unwashed masses.

You're putting the cart before the horse. We've already been through
this in Watergate. The public wasn't "there yet" either. Honest to
Christ I can't believe you'd say something this ignorant, you're smarter
than that.

> Now, the majority of Americans not only approve of impeachment, they
> agree that Trump should BE REMOVED.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/25/how-the-watergate-crisis-eroded-public-support-for-richard-nixon/

Nixon began his term with a 68% approval rating. How do you think
Pelosi's "strategy" would have worked then? I wish I had a fucking
dollar every time I had a guy on the hook clinging to an untenble
position like this. And in case you're wondering the Watergate scandal
is a million times more comparable to Trump's reign of bullshit than
Clinton's impeachment was. Clinton lied about a blowjob and Nixon
obstructed justice along with a cavalcade of assholes working with him.

> If  you don't think that's a clear fucking win for Pelosi, your kidding
> yourself.  Mueller was a dead end.  Not because of what it revealed...
> because it did a great job at that.  But it was sabotaged by Right wing
> media, the DOJ and the AG, who did a masterful job at obscuring
> everything in it.

Sure, and if the hearings were ongoing even before the Mueller report
dropped the public would have been in the loop about how much bullshit
the Republicans were trying to sling. That's the Dems losing, not
winning. Meanwhile migrant kids are being raped and Kurds are dying.
Do you know what a Pyrrhic victory is?

[FPP]

On 10/12/19 7:06 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 10/12/19 4:18 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/12/19 4:39 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 10/11/19 6:49 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/19 6:30 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 10/10/19 5:48 PM, FPP wrote:

Strawman. That's beneath you.

[FPP]

On 10/12/19 7:06 AM, trotsky wrote:

> On 10/12/19 4:18 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/12/19 4:39 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 10/11/19 6:49 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/19 6:30 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 10/10/19 5:48 PM, FPP wrote:

Yup. And it took over 2 years for them to get to the point where they
could get rid of Nixon.
TWO years. Pelosi did it in record time.

[FPP]

On 10/12/19 7:06 AM, trotsky wrote:

Again. Strawman. The Kurds have nothing to do with this. You were
never going to be able to stop that because it was the decision of one
man, on a whim and nobody saw it coming.

You were NEVER going to get to impeachment with anything less than we
have right now.
Mueller wasn't even on the public's radar even AFTER the report was
released.

This isn't some 400 page report. The Ukraine scandal is simple, and can
be reduced to a single sentence:

"Is it OK for the President of the United States to use the power of his
office to get a foreign government to interfere with our elections by
digging up dirt on a political opponent?"

That's it! And everybody KNOWS the answer to that question. It's
working because it's:

A) Simple. Easy to understand.
B) True.
C) The proof was provided by the President himself.
D) Reinforced by doing it again live on TV.

[trotsky]

The world coming to the aid of the Jews in WWII is exactly analogus to
coming to the aid of the Kurds and would in no way be a strawman argument.

[trotsky]

You're not making sense. Getting rid of means fulfilling the process,
which in this case ended in resignation. You're conflating it with
approval by the public which is what we were originally speaking of.
Pick a lane please.

[trotsky]

You're conflating public approval with fulfillment of the process again.
Stop it it makes you look stupid. Pelosi could make a few phone calls
and find out if the Republicans are on board in the Senate for their
vote. Maybe she has but we don't know it. Either way, Trump could be
removed from office post haste in the interest of saving human lives
thusly. Provided McConnell doesn't obstruct, but he's fucked either way
anyway.

[FPP]

Neither had anything to do with Ukraine or had any influence on impeachment.

[FPP]

I did. Without public support, impeachment works against the party that
brings it.
After Mueller, the support of the American people for impeachment dropped.

You can't rush impeachment. If you do, you pay for it be looking like
you're trying to overturn the result of the people's choice.

For Nixon, that took 2 years. For Pelosi, a few months.

[FPP]

Yup. Public approval for impeachment is the difference between success
and seeing it backfire.
Clinton showed us that.

Even with everything we have right now, it's still about a 5-10% chance
of succeeding in the Senate.

Here is how the numbers stand as of 3 days ago:

0 Republican Senators support the impeachment.
15 Have expressed concerns or said they have questions.
38 Support Trump unequivocally.

We need 20. We have ZERO.
If everybody who "expressed concerns" voted to remove, we're still FIVE shy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-impeachment-gop-senators-reactions/

Removal is a long longshot. If you had ironclad evidence Trump was DB
Sweeney, you still wouldn't have enough votes to remove him today.

[A Friend]

In article <vjgoF.178678$kQ.1...@fx40.iad>, trotsky

<gms...@email.com> wrote:

> I see, so they could focus on any one of the numerous infractions
> outlined in the Mueller Report and instead waiting for Trump to
> incriminate himself was best? That's called luck, not strategy.
> Trump's big fat fucking mouth handed Pelosi a get out of purgatory free
> card.

This is going to go south fast for Trump. There's just too much
pressure, and he's not handling it well at all.

And Pelosi's in trouble, too. I'm presuming the Democrats will keep
the majority in the next Congress, and Pelosi is going to be held to
account for all her bullshit this year. She pissed off all the people
who turned out to be right.

[trotsky]

That's a Republican talking point you doofus. They all swore an oath to
the Constitution and this is their Constitutional duty. That's always
going to be a fact. Fuck their worries about what's politically
expedient to them. Denial of the Constitution because it's not
convenient will always be a bad argument. Always, no exceptions. It's
the document on which our whole government is based.

[trotsky]

If it's in the Constitution that's no problem. You don't seem to get
it, I have no interest in Dems being whores that want to hold on to
their jobs. THEY HAVE SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. Clinton was a
bastardization of the Constitution and they Repugs got their just
desserts. Trump is the worst President in the history of the world and
you're worried about political expediency. That will always be the
problem.

[moviePig]

Not a news junkie, but I haven't sensed major public animus toward her.
In fact, I'd have guessed the opposite. Still, of course, it's how her
fellow politicians feel (i.e., calculate) that matters...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Adam H. Kerman]

I don't agree with you.

The House of Representatives is venal, generally. Given that some of
its members have been talking about impeachment all throughout his
administration without considering the implications for the future of
democracy by reversing an election, it's a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation.

How will it be possible to convince Republicans and anyone who isn't
already convinced that impeachment is the right thing to do that it's
still not a power-grabbing exercise?

This is really going to screw up the Iowa caucuses and early primaries.

You're making me defend Nancy Pelosi. She's been one of the few in the
House behaving like a grownup.

I want Trump to be the nominee and I want the Democrats to prove they
can beat him fair and square at the ballot box, otherwise the Democratic
Party might as well dissolve.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 8:27:28 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> You're conflating public approval with fulfillment of the process again.
> Stop it it makes you look stupid. Pelosi could make a few phone calls
> and find out if the Republicans are on board in the Senate for their
> vote. Maybe she has but we don't know it. Either way, Trump could be
> removed from office post haste in the interest of saving human lives
> thusly. Provided McConnell doesn't obstruct, but he's fucked either way
> anyway.

In my humble opinion, TODAY, the votes are NOT there yet in
the Senate to remove Trump from office, indeed, they have a
long way to go to get those votes.

However, the Ukraine issue is a major step forward.

Trump just lost in court. One can't help but suspect his
tax returns might be the smoking gun to prove his unworthiness
for office. Likewise with the testimony of his staff.

[FPP]

Ha-ha-ha... they swore an oath to the Constitution.
That was a good one!

And the day that the entire party denied Obama his SCOTUS pick is the
day they used that Constitution to wipe their nasty asses.

One side has decided that the Constitution and principals only matter
when the other party is in power. Deficits only matter when the other
party is in power. Subpoenas only matter when the other party is in
power.

The Rule of Fucking Law only counts when the other party is in power.
I feel your pain, but those times are clearly over.

[FPP]

Trots... this isn't about the Constitution any more. It's about the
survival of the republic.
If Trump wins in 2020, I'm not sure there will be much left of the
Constitution to uphold.

If all that mattered was the Law, the Truth and the Constitution, Trump
would have been removed a year and a half ago.

[FPP]

How? By giving everybody in her party what they wanted?
If Trump is impeached, loses the 2020 election and Pelosi retains the
House - what more could she have done?

Impeachment looks to be a done deal, and Trump's 2020 prospects are
fading by the week.
Besides... didn't Pelosi already agree to limits on her speakership?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rep-nancy-pelosi-agrees-to-step-aside-by-2022-to-win-votes-for-house-speaker-bid

[trotsky]

That's the right. We're talking about the people on the left helming a
supposed impeachment.

> One side has decided that the Constitution and principals only matter
> when the other party is in power.  Deficits only matter when the other
> party is in power.  Subpoenas only matter when the other party is in power.
>
> The Rule of Fucking Law only counts when the other party is in power.
> I feel your pain, but those times are clearly over.

So take that thought to it's logical conclusion. How do we fix this.
The internet is rife with geniuses diagnosing the problem with zero
solutions.

[trotsky]

The only way Trump could win is if the election is fixed. If the
election is fixed we might as well have a Civil War then.

> If all that mattered was the Law, the Truth and the Constitution, Trump
> would have been removed a year and a half ago.

Not if the Dems were doing it. It take them that long just to think
about it.

[FPP]

We fix it at the ballot box. By not taking shortcuts that FEEL good.

[FPP]

We already HAVE one leader who does things on impulse. We don't need
any more.

[trotsky]

I thought Putin and Kris Kobach did this.

By not taking shortcuts that FEEL good.

Oh my, the all caps to make the statement FEEL less vague? I was AFRAID
it would come to this.

[trotsky]

LOL. The worthless fat fuck has been in office from day one, corrupt
100% of the time, and we're talking about impulse? Rep. Al Green was
the only one with the stones to file articles of impeachment on a timely
basis. Waiting for people to die or be raped or thrown into
concentration camps while despots are chopping people up and throwing
them in vats of acid isn't the right call in my book. It's being
complicit in the worst events in the U.S. in modern history. But we've
been over this before, you're entitled to your opinion however wrong it
may be, I know how it will look in the history books.

[FPP]

Well, they're sure as shit not helping your argument.
Snark is fun, but it accomplishes nothing except making you feel better.

[FPP]

I don't care about anything except stopping the madman. If that means
NOT doing what I'd like to do, and being patient - I'll do it.

People have been dying in Syria forever. Over a hundred thousand have
already died in the latest conflict.

We didn't start it, and we can't stop it.

[FPP]

Oh... but we CAN make it worse. I should have said that up front.

That's why this sociopath needs to be kept busy. Otherwise, he has too
much time on his hands, and that's really, really bad news for just
about everybody.

By the time Pelosi and the Dems are through with him, he'll be a basket
case.

[Micky DuPree]

Maybe, maybe not. Barring new developments (always possible), the only
way to get any practical benefit out of impeachment is the
investigations, the negative publicity for Trump and his congressional
defenders, and the drag all that can impose on all their reelection
campaigns. As soon as the impeachment vote is over and the House hands
it over to the Senate, the Democrats lose control of the narrative to
Mitch McConnell, and Pelosi knows that. She's always known it. If
she's smart, she doesn't let it come to a vote until close to a year
from now, so that Trump's acquittal (or McConnell's refusal to even
hold the trial) doesn't end up being "last year's news" as voters go to
the polls.

Some will piss and moan about "establishment Democrats" until the cows
come home, but I think Pelosi waited until a good pretext emerged for
moving forward, a pretext that itself was closer to the election than
all the previous pretexts, which could have grown cold (and did) in the
news cycle before 2020. Trump has been guilty of multiple crimes all
along, but most people don't care about some of them (e.g., porn stars,
though the actual crime was campaign violations), and other crimes were
too complex for the average Joe to follow (most Americans did not read
the hundreds of pages of the Mueller report). But the Ukrainian phone
call was easy for most people to follow. Withholding aid to a foreign
power to coerce foreign help in a domestic election is straightforward.
I don't see someone who was derelict in her duty, but someone who had a
harvest full of lemons and is trying to make lemonade. Pushing for an
inevitably unsuccessful impeachment before now would have been impotent
grandstanding. It might have scratched some people where they itched at
first, but the itch would have just come back worse than ever.

-Micky

[moviePig]

Plus, it seems that new lemons arrive daily...

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 7:24:50 AM UTC-4, Micky DuPree wrote:

> Maybe, maybe not. Barring new developments (always possible), the only
> way to get any practical benefit out of impeachment is the
> investigations, the negative publicity for Trump and his congressional
> defenders, and the drag all that can impose on all their reelection
> campaigns. As soon as the impeachment vote is over and the House hands
> it over to the Senate, the Democrats lose control of the narrative to
> Mitch McConnell, and Pelosi knows that. She's always known it. If
> she's smart, she doesn't let it come to a vote until close to a year
> from now, so that Trump's acquittal (or McConnell's refusal to even
> hold the trial) doesn't end up being "last year's news" as voters go to
> the polls.

My guess is that Pelosi will not send an impeachment bill over
to the Senate unless she knows in advance she has enough votes
for it to pass.

Obviously TODAY the Repubs are standing by Trump. But there
are cracks. Repubs are quite pissed off by the carnage
their boy unleased in Syria, totally against Repub desires
(and any common sense). Repubs saw how they lost big time
in 2018 and fear another washout in 2020 (which is why so
many are resigning).

Repubs can not ignore, as much as they might try, the
crap coming out about the Ukraine mess.

Repubs can not ignore, as much as their propaganda machine
tries to tell them, that farmers and factory workers are
doing well under Trump's policies. Coal is suffering.
Tariff policy is a huge train wreck.

>
> Some will piss and moan about "establishment Democrats" until the cows
> come home, but I think Pelosi waited until a good pretext emerged for
> moving forward, a pretext that itself was closer to the election than
> all the previous pretexts, which could have grown cold (and did) in the
> news cycle before 2020. Trump has been guilty of multiple crimes all
> along, but most people don't care about some of them (e.g., porn stars,
> though the actual crime was campaign violations), and other crimes were
> too complex for the average Joe to follow (most Americans did not read
> the hundreds of pages of the Mueller report). But the Ukrainian phone
> call was easy for most people to follow. Withholding aid to a foreign
> power to coerce foreign help in a domestic election is straightforward.

Yes, Americans don't like the involvement of a foreign power
in our affairs.

Repubs don't like giving anything and everything away to Russia.

> I don't see someone who was derelict in her duty, but someone who had a
> harvest full of lemons and is trying to make lemonade. Pushing for an
> inevitably unsuccessful impeachment before now would have been impotent
> grandstanding. It might have scratched some people where they itched at
> first, but the itch would have just come back worse than ever.

Yes. She's waiting for the right moment.

Unfortunately, some extremist Democrats like AOC are not making
her life easy.

[NoBody]

So you are admitting that impeachment is merely a politically
motivated attack on Trump. How refreshing.