Indictment-O-Rama, Act 3: Cohen Up the River

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1159419634589868032?s=20

[Person Man]

Wasn't the Trump and his bureaucracy seeking judicial relief over this?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Major banks hand over wealth of information on Russians linked to Trump family to Congress: report - “Some banks are also giving documents related to Mr. Trump’s business . . . to New York state investigators"

Among the institutions turning over documents, are Bank of America Corp. , Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG , JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo & Co.

The Journal adds, “The investigators are working on a joint probe into potential foreign influence on Mr. Trump and his family by the House Financial Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. More information will likely be handed over in coming weeks as the banks continue to respond to subpoenas sent in April.”

[Crumpets]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1164714935944974336?s=20

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1164714935944974336?s=20

Fake news absent confirmation from a credible source

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1164714935944974336?s=20

Fake news absent confirmation from a credible source

I'm inclined to agree.  I read the whole thread and my impression is that Abramson is trying to sell his book.

[Silent Hunter]

Who would file charges for lying to Congress anyway?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Who would file charges for lying to Congress anyway?

It could be referred to the DOJ for investigation and possible prosecution.  Lying to Congress is a federal crime.

[pbrower2a]

Who would file charges for lying to Congress anyway?

Did you ever read about the Kefauver Committee? Senator Estes Kefauver organized investigations of organized crime in interstate commerce, and although many mobsters were called before committees of both Houses of Congress, most mobsters knew enough to plead the Fifth Amendment. Had they admitted their crimes, then such would be cause for conviction for crimes themselves. Had they denied what they did they could have been nailed for lying to Congress, which has time in federal prison as a consequence.

the crimes themselves -- or perjury.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Special_Committee_to_Investigate_Crime_in_Interstate_Commerce

[GeorgiaModerate]

DOJ office of the inspector general releases their report on Comey's leak of his memos: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o1902.pdf.

TL/DR: Comey violated DOJ and FBI policies and his employment agreement.  He did not leak any classified information.  The findings were referred to DOJ, which declined to press charges.

[libertpaulian]

BREAKING!
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1170161132851650560

[Progressive Pessimist]

BREAKING!
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1170161132851650560

FINALLY!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Donald Trump Was “Colluding” with Roger Stone on Four Different Direct Lines

The parties in the Roger Stone trial just released some pre-trial documents that include a stipulation for a bunch of emails and phone numbers that will be discussed at trial. (I’m not linking them because they’re not redacted.)

The big surprise — though I guess we should have expected this — is that Erik Prince is on there, which means he’s probably the Trump supporter eagerly awaiting the drop of John Podesta’s emails.

But far more damning is that there are four Donald Trump phone numbers there, as well as numbers for his two assistants and his bodyguard, Keith Schiller.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Holder cautions against potentially prosecuting Trump post presidency

I am shocked, shocked, that a man who accepted a cushy sinecure after refusing to prosecute torture, domestic spying, and the largest financial frauds in our nation's history doesn't want to prosecute Don the Con either.

Anyone defending Trump using some "good of the nation" nonsense or anything similar is no better than the Republicans crooks and traitors they want to help.

[Silent Hunter]

There's a decent chance that Trump might not be fit to stand trial after his presidency.

[GeorgiaModerate]

On the theme of prosecuting Trump after he leaves office, today's Doonesbury comic is "The Future Tweets of Donald J. Trump."

https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2019/09/15

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Holder cautions against potentially prosecuting Trump post presidency

I am shocked, shocked, that a man who accepted a cushy sinecure after refusing to prosecute torture, domestic spying, and the largest financial frauds in our nation's history doesn't want to prosecute Don the Con either.

Anyone defending Trump using some "good of the nation" nonsense or anything similar is no better than the Republicans crooks and traitors they want to help.

That’s not what he said...

[Frodo]

Holder cautions against potentially prosecuting Trump post presidency

I am shocked, shocked, that a man who accepted a cushy sinecure after refusing to prosecute torture, domestic spying, and the largest financial frauds in our nation's history doesn't want to prosecute Don the Con either.

Anyone defending Trump using some "good of the nation" nonsense or anything similar is no better than the Republicans crooks and traitors they want to help.

That’s not what he said...

He said that in the absence of impeachment, Trump should not be prosecuted after leaving office, given that it would 'pose risks to the nation'.  To which I answer, isn't there a greater risk if we leave the public with the impression that if you are rich and famous enough, that you can never be held accountable for your actions (in this life)?  That Trump is therefore above the law?  Is that really what Holder wants for this country -one set of rules for the ordinary Joe and Jane, and then another for the elite?  

Screw him.  

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Holder cautions against potentially prosecuting Trump post presidency

I am shocked, shocked, that a man who accepted a cushy sinecure after refusing to prosecute torture, domestic spying, and the largest financial frauds in our nation's history doesn't want to prosecute Don the Con either.

Anyone defending Trump using some "good of the nation" nonsense or anything similar is no better than the Republicans crooks and traitors they want to help.

That’s not what he said...

He said that in the absence of impeachment, Trump should not be prosecuted after leaving office, given that it would 'pose risks to the nation'.  To which I answer, isn't there a greater risk if we leave the public with the impression that if you are rich and famous enough, that you can never be held accountable for your actions (in this life)?  That Trump is therefore above the law?  Is that really what Holder wants for this country -one set of rules for the ordinary Joe and Jane, and then another for the elite?  

Screw him.  

I may have missed that part, but I didn't see where he said Trump shouldn't be prosecuted.

[Frodo]

Holder cautions against potentially prosecuting Trump post presidency

I am shocked, shocked, that a man who accepted a cushy sinecure after refusing to prosecute torture, domestic spying, and the largest financial frauds in our nation's history doesn't want to prosecute Don the Con either.

Anyone defending Trump using some "good of the nation" nonsense or anything similar is no better than the Republicans crooks and traitors they want to help.

That’s not what he said...

He said that in the absence of impeachment, Trump should not be prosecuted after leaving office, given that it would 'pose risks to the nation'.  To which I answer, isn't there a greater risk if we leave the public with the impression that if you are rich and famous enough, that you can never be held accountable for your actions (in this life)?  That Trump is therefore above the law?  Is that really what Holder wants for this country -one set of rules for the ordinary Joe and Jane, and then another for the elite?  

Screw him.  

I may have missed that part, but I didn't see where he said Trump shouldn't be prosecuted.

He doesn't say so explicitly -to be sure, he says Trump may be prosecuted after leaving office, but then qualifies that initial statement so much so that towards the end of the interview, he might as well have said the opposite. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Holder cautions against potentially prosecuting Trump post presidency

I am shocked, shocked, that a man who accepted a cushy sinecure after refusing to prosecute torture, domestic spying, and the largest financial frauds in our nation's history doesn't want to prosecute Don the Con either.

Anyone defending Trump using some "good of the nation" nonsense or anything similar is no better than the Republicans crooks and traitors they want to help.

That’s not what he said...

He said that in the absence of impeachment, Trump should not be prosecuted after leaving office, given that it would 'pose risks to the nation'.  To which I answer, isn't there a greater risk if we leave the public with the impression that if you are rich and famous enough, that you can never be held accountable for your actions (in this life)?  That Trump is therefore above the law?  Is that really what Holder wants for this country -one set of rules for the ordinary Joe and Jane, and then another for the elite?  

Screw him.  

I may have missed that part, but I didn't see where he said Trump shouldn't be prosecuted.

He doesn't say so explicitly -to be sure, he says Trump may be prosecuted after leaving office, but then qualifies that initial statement so much so that towards the end of the interview, he might as well have said the opposite. 

Here's the part that got me steaming mad:

"Yes, I think there is a potential cost to the nation by putting on trial a former president, and that ought to at least be a part of the calculus that goes into the determination that has to be made by the next attorney general," Holder said.

"I think we all should understand what a trial of a former president would do to the nation, he added, acknowledging that Ford's decision may have cost him the 1976 election.

Holder added, "But you know, I think looking back, I tend to think that that was probably the right thing to do."

Again, this isn't surprising, because it's just a variation on the life and values Holder has lived:

When the rich and powerful break the law and get caught, they are given a a slap on the wrist, and sometimes a show is made over their guilt, but they get to keep their freedom and their money, both their ill-gotten gains and their pre-existing wealth.

[Silent Hunter]

Elmo?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Elmo?

Elmo would be premature.  So far Trump has managed to stave off all requests for the returns.

[Badger]

Holder cautions against potentially prosecuting Trump post presidency

I am shocked, shocked, that a man who accepted a cushy sinecure after refusing to prosecute torture, domestic spying, and the largest financial frauds in our nation's history doesn't want to prosecute Don the Con either.

Anyone defending Trump using some "good of the nation" nonsense or anything similar is no better than the Republicans crooks and traitors they want to help.

That’s not what he said...

He said that in the absence of impeachment, Trump should not be prosecuted after leaving office, given that it would 'pose risks to the nation'.  To which I answer, isn't there a greater risk if we leave the public with the impression that if you are rich and famous enough, that you can never be held accountable for your actions (in this life)?  That Trump is therefore above the law?  Is that really what Holder wants for this country -one set of rules for the ordinary Joe and Jane, and then another for the elite?  

Screw him.  

I may have missed that part, but I didn't see where he said Trump shouldn't be prosecuted.

He doesn't say so explicitly -to be sure, he says Trump may be prosecuted after leaving office, but then qualifies that initial statement so much so that towards the end of the interview, he might as well have said the opposite. 

Here's the part that got me steaming mad:

"Yes, I think there is a potential cost to the nation by putting on trial a former president, and that ought to at least be a part of the calculus that goes into the determination that has to be made by the next attorney general," Holder said.

"I think we all should understand what a trial of a former president would do to the nation, he added, acknowledging that Ford's decision may have cost him the 1976 election.

Holder added, "But you know, I think looking back, I tend to think that that was probably the right thing to do."

Again, this isn't surprising, because it's just a variation on the life and values Holder has lived:

When the rich and powerful break the law and get caught, they are given a a slap on the wrist, and sometimes a show is made over their guilt, but they get to keep their freedom and their money, both their ill-gotten gains and their pre-existing wealth.

There is a fundamental difference between CrossFit and Nixon and Prosecuting Trump. Nixon always had an aura of sleaze and dirty tricks about him, but at least he tried oh, fortunately unsuccessfully, to keep things hidden. Has been unspeakably maddeningly open and Brazen about his disdain for the law and thinking he can and will do whatever he wants because he's president and Rich. If he's not prosecuted after giving American basis of government the middle finger I nearly daily basis for four years oh, and fleeces the treasury consistently throughout that period, then that will permanently and significantly rude trust in American Justice.

 Not to mention I would argue the constitutional violations here at very least as significant as Watergate, maybe even more so in some ways again based on the Brazen and almost daring nature being willing to flout the law from day one. On top of that, while there was some Financial shenanigans Nixon, it is nothing compared to the Teapot Dome on steroids that Trump has engendered in his administration.

[Person Man]

Holder cautions against potentially prosecuting Trump post presidency

I am shocked, shocked, that a man who accepted a cushy sinecure after refusing to prosecute torture, domestic spying, and the largest financial frauds in our nation's history doesn't want to prosecute Don the Con either.

Anyone defending Trump using some "good of the nation" nonsense or anything similar is no better than the Republicans crooks and traitors they want to help.

That’s not what he said...

He said that in the absence of impeachment, Trump should not be prosecuted after leaving office, given that it would 'pose risks to the nation'.  To which I answer, isn't there a greater risk if we leave the public with the impression that if you are rich and famous enough, that you can never be held accountable for your actions (in this life)?  That Trump is therefore above the law?  Is that really what Holder wants for this country -one set of rules for the ordinary Joe and Jane, and then another for the elite?  

Screw him.  

I may have missed that part, but I didn't see where he said Trump shouldn't be prosecuted.

He doesn't say so explicitly -to be sure, he says Trump may be prosecuted after leaving office, but then qualifies that initial statement so much so that towards the end of the interview, he might as well have said the opposite. 

Here's the part that got me steaming mad:

"Yes, I think there is a potential cost to the nation by putting on trial a former president, and that ought to at least be a part of the calculus that goes into the determination that has to be made by the next attorney general," Holder said.

"I think we all should understand what a trial of a former president would do to the nation, he added, acknowledging that Ford's decision may have cost him the 1976 election.

Holder added, "But you know, I think looking back, I tend to think that that was probably the right thing to do."

Again, this isn't surprising, because it's just a variation on the life and values Holder has lived:

When the rich and powerful break the law and get caught, they are given a a slap on the wrist, and sometimes a show is made over their guilt, but they get to keep their freedom and their money, both their ill-gotten gains and their pre-existing wealth.

There is a fundamental difference between CrossFit and Nixon and Prosecuting Trump. Nixon always had an aura of sleaze and dirty tricks about him, but at least he tried oh, fortunately unsuccessfully, to keep things hidden. Has been unspeakably maddeningly open and Brazen about his disdain for the law and thinking he can and will do whatever he wants because he's president and Rich. If he's not prosecuted after giving American basis of government the middle finger I nearly daily basis for four years oh, and fleeces the treasury consistently throughout that period, then that will permanently and significantly rude trust in American Justice.

 Not to mention I would argue the constitutional violations here at very least as significant as Watergate, maybe even more so in some ways again based on the Brazen and almost daring nature being willing to flout the law from day one. On top of that, while there was some Financial shenanigans Nixon, it is nothing compared to the Teapot Dome on steroids that Trump has engendered in his administration.

The entire Teapot Dome scandal ironically may mean that eventually the rule of law might live to see another day. Despite the Teapot Dome scandal, there were practically zero consequences for it and yet the law didn't lose its value because of it.