FBI raids Trump lawyer's office

[Belsnickel]

Okay, seriously folks.

This was referred by Mueller because he found something outside the scope of his investigative authority. This is exactly how it is supposed to work.

The warrant, as pointed out early, was processed through a Trump appointee in a district that has been notoriously anti-corruption in a bipartisan way. It had to meet special scrutiny as any warrant sought that invades that attorney-client privilege has an extra layer to go through before a judge will approve it. Essentially, it has to be very narrow in scope and they must show that they have strong reason to believe there is evidence of ongoing criminal activity. This is exactly how it is supposed to work.

This is an investigation into Michael Cohen, not Trump. This is an investigation into bank fraud, not Russian meddling, not specifically Trump. The issue is that because Cohen and Trump are so intertwined that there is a possibility for overlap. However, since this does not have to do with Russia or the election, it is not for Mueller to investigate.

Tl;dr: this is all above board and makes it harder for the "witch hunt" crowd to cry foul because the legal system is behaving exactly as it should.

[GMDino]

(04-10-2018, 10:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Okay, seriously folks.

This was referred by Mueller because he found something outside the scope of his investigative authority. This is exactly how it is supposed to work.

The warrant, as pointed out early, was processed through a Trump appointee in a district that has been notoriously anti-corruption in a bipartisan way. It had to meet special scrutiny as any warrant sought that invades that attorney-client privilege has an extra layer to go through before a judge will approve it. Essentially, it has to be very narrow in scope and they must show that they have strong reason to believe there is evidence of ongoing criminal activity. This is exactly how it is supposed to work.

This is an investigation into Michael Cohen, not Trump. This is an investigation into bank fraud, not Russian meddling, not specifically Trump. The issue is that because Cohen and Trump are so intertwined that there is a possibility for overlap. However, since this does not have to do with Russia or the election, it is not for Mueller to investigate.

Tl;dr: this is all above board and makes it harder for the "witch hunt" crowd to cry foul because the legal system is behaving exactly as it should.

From what I have read their is a group that *can* look through papers and if Cohen and a client were involved TOGETHER in something they can turn it over for review and if approved to the prosecutor.

And I understand this not on the Russians or the election...probably.  Cohen was, as you say, "intertwined" with Trump very deeply.  It certainly isn't "nothing" and it was in no way illegal....which is the latest defense from the echo chamber.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-10-2018, 10:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Okay, seriously folks.

This was referred by Mueller because he found something outside the scope of his investigative authority. This is exactly how it is supposed to work.

The warrant, as pointed out early, was processed through a Trump appointee in a district that has been notoriously anti-corruption in a bipartisan way. It had to meet special scrutiny as any warrant sought that invades that attorney-client privilege has an extra layer to go through before a judge will approve it. Essentially, it has to be very narrow in scope and they must show that they have strong reason to believe there is evidence of ongoing criminal activity. This is exactly how it is supposed to work.

This is an investigation into Michael Cohen, not Trump. This is an investigation into bank fraud, not Russian meddling, not specifically Trump. The issue is that because Cohen and Trump are so intertwined that there is a possibility for overlap. However, since this does not have to do with Russia or the election, it is not for Mueller to investigate.

Tl;dr: this is all above board and makes it harder for the "witch hunt" crowd to cry foul because the legal system is behaving exactly as it should.

So high end nyc law firm involved in potential shady dealings...... say it ain’t so lol.

[*Nately120*]

(04-10-2018, 11:47 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So high end nyc law firm involved in potential shady dealings......  say it ain’t so lol.

Hey, winners don't let ethics get in the way of winning.

[Belsnickel]

(04-10-2018, 11:47 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So high end nyc law firm involved in potential shady dealings...... say it ain’t so lol.

I don't disagree at all. They were just unfortunate enough to get noticed in something else.

[GMDino]

(04-10-2018, 11:47 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So high end nyc law firm involved in potential shady dealings......  say it ain’t so lol.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-10-2018, 12:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree at all. They were just unfortunate enough to get noticed in something else.

This feels like every other leftist trump wet dream. They hope and hope, yet get a big nothing burger payoff.

Getting overly excited about any of this is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

[Belsnickel]

(04-10-2018, 01:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This feels like every other leftist trump wet dream. They hope and hope, yet get a big nothing burger payoff.

Getting overly excited about any of this is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

This may be a shock to you, but I agree completely. This isn't to say I think Trump is clean. I think he is corrupt, I think he has hired corrupt people, I think he isn't good at governing and he has hired people that aren't good at their jobs, either. But, instead of focusing on Mueller we (my side of the aisle) should be focusing on the policies the people want. Trump ran on a platform he can't fulfill because it doesn't really mesh with either party. If we look at what his talking points were that were popular and see what we can run on, saying that if we take Congress we can make it happen and actually provide Congressional oversight to the Executive as the Constitution intended, then we can do something.

Putting our hopes and dreams in Mueller or impeachment is a fool's errand. Win elections, earn the right to govern, that is how we do it. Disagree with his and the GOP's policies all day long, but leave it at that. The rest is a soap opera.

[GMDino]

(04-10-2018, 01:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This may be a shock to you, but I agree completely. This isn't to say I think Trump is clean. I think he is corrupt, I think he has hired corrupt people, I think he isn't good at governing and he has hired people that aren't good at their jobs, either. But, instead of focusing on Mueller we (my side of the aisle) should be focusing on the policies the people want. Trump ran on a platform he can't fulfill because it doesn't really mesh with either party. If we look at what his talking points were that were popular and see what we can run on, saying that if we take Congress we can make it happen and actually provide Congressional oversight to the Executive as the Constitution intended, then we can do something.

Putting our hopes and dreams in Mueller or impeachment is a fool's errand. Win elections, earn the right to govern, that is how we do it. Disagree with his and the GOP's policies all day long, but leave it at that. The rest is a soap opera.

I think you are overstating the belief that the investigation isn't a "nothing burger".

Personally, and those I talk to about it, we are not just hoping Trump gets kicked out of office.  The focus IS on getting policy changed, signing up new voters and getting new people elected.

But this is not a "soap opera" any more than it is a "witch hunt".  It is an investigation that has already turned up some nefarious stuff.  Will it take down Trump?  I don't know and do doubt it.  He's too clueless and so probably insulated from the really bad stuff.  Underlings probably just feed/fed him info about how well everything was going and since his style is to accept good news and ignore bad he wouldn't have the intellectual capacity to ask questions about how or why.

When we look back on past Presidential scandals we have the benefit of them being over.  We can look at the whole timeline and how things opened up and worked out.  This is happening in real time in our lifetime.  It's harder to gauge the events up close as we are.  But that doesn't make it a "soap opera".  It makes it reality.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-10-2018, 01:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This may be a shock to you, but I agree completely. This isn't to say I think Trump is clean. I think he is corrupt, I think he has hired corrupt people, I think he isn't good at governing and he has hired people that aren't good at their jobs, either. But, instead of focusing on Mueller we (my side of the aisle) should be focusing on the policies the people want. Trump ran on a platform he can't fulfill because it doesn't really mesh with either party. If we look at what his talking points were that were popular and see what we can run on, saying that if we take Congress we can make it happen and actually provide Congressional oversight to the Executive as the Constitution intended, then we can do something.

Putting our hopes and dreams in Mueller or impeachment is a fool's errand. Win elections, earn the right to govern, that is how we do it. Disagree with his and the GOP's policies all day long, but leave it at that. The rest is a soap opera.

Always nice to find common ground, even when it’s small.

Trump is having success in foreign policy which will hurt the Democrats. If NK denuke’s and this new Middle East coalition steps up then Trump and the gop will have a pretty good case. Along with the regulatory reforms. I know you do not like these policies but most of normal ordinary America does.

I don’t pretend to believe anyone is pure. Especially billionaires with teams of lawyers. The same goes for these democrats and their use of the fbi, and other parts of the government to target political enemies. Misuse of government resources is a massive problem that will certainly net both democrats and republicans

[Belsnickel]

(04-10-2018, 01:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think you are overstating the belief that the investigation isn't a "nothing burger".

Personally, and those I talk to about it, we are not just hoping Trump gets kicked out of office.  The focus IS on getting policy changed, signing up new voters and getting new people elected.

But this is not a "soap opera" any more than it is a "witch hunt".  It is an investigation that has already turned up some nefarious stuff.  Will it take down Trump?  I don't know and do doubt it.  He's too clueless and so probably insulated from the really bad stuff.  Underlings probably just feed/fed him info about how well everything was going and since his style is to accept good news and ignore bad he wouldn't have the intellectual capacity to ask questions about how or why.

When we look back on past Presidential scandals we have the benefit of them being over.  We can look at the whole timeline and how things opened up and worked out.  This is happening in real time in our lifetime.  It's harder to gauge the events up close as we are.  But that doesn't make it a "soap opera".  It makes it reality.

I think you're missing my point. When we focus on the investigation and all that, then that is time not being focused on the piss poor policies by the administration. I don't see the investigation as meaningless, I just don't see any point in focusing any political capital on that when that is going as it should.

(04-10-2018, 02:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Always nice to find common ground, even when it’s small.

Trump is having success in foreign policy which will hurt the Democrats. If NK denuke’s and this new Middle East coalition steps up then Trump and the gop will have a pretty good case. Along with the regulatory reforms. I know you do not like these policies but most of normal ordinary America does.

I don’t pretend to believe anyone is pure. Especially billionaires with teams of lawyers. The same goes for these democrats and their use of the fbi, and other parts of the government to target political enemies. Misuse of government resources is a massive problem that will certainly net both democrats and republicans

I think you may have a misunderstanding on how his foreign policy has been going and how his policies play to the people. But it will be interesting to see how things look for the midterms.

[GMDino]

(04-10-2018, 02:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think you're missing my point. When we focus on the investigation and all that, then that is time not being focused on the piss poor policies by the administration. I don't see the investigation as meaningless, I just don't see any point in focusing any political capital on that when that is going as it should.

Got it.  I did misunderstand. I just believe we can do both.  The investigation we can't put any effort behind personally so I don't think it takes anything away from the other efforts to watch/comment on it.  

[StLucieBengal]

(04-10-2018, 02:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think you're missing my point. When we focus on the investigation and all that, then that is time not being focused on the piss poor policies by the administration. I don't see the investigation as meaningless, I just don't see any point in focusing any political capital on that when that is going as it should.


I think you may have a misunderstanding on how his foreign policy has been going and how his policies play to the people. But it will be interesting to see how things look for the midterms.

If it happens under his watch. He gets credit. That’s how it’s always worked.

[Belsnickel]

(04-10-2018, 03:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If it happens under his watch. He gets credit. That’s how it’s always worked.

Only to some. There are those that will say that, but then don't hold to that for officials from the other side. Those that do hold to that don't understand how these things tend to work. The ones that don't understand are the ones trying to be swung, but right now it is up in the air if that will really work out because there is a lot of good and bad.

[ballsofsteel]

(04-10-2018, 02:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Always nice to find common ground, even when it’s small.  

Trump is having success in foreign policy which will hurt the Democrats.  If NK denuke’s and this new Middle East coalition steps up then Trump and the gop will have a pretty good case.  Along with the regulatory reforms.   I know you do not like these policies but most of normal ordinary America does.  

I don’t pretend to believe anyone is pure.   Especially billionaires with teams of lawyers.   The same goes for these democrats and their use of the fbi, and other parts of the government to target political enemies.  Misuse of government resources is a massive problem that will certainly net both democrats and republicans

iF NK Denukes, it only will be because we bought them off like all the other presidents did. Alot of If's.

[ballsofsteel]

Madeline Albright on Cobart said Obama drew a red line about Syria. When he wanted to do more legally, congress wouldn't back him.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-10-2018, 06:32 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Madeline Albright on Cobart said Obama drew a red line about Syria. When he wanted to do more legally, congress wouldn't back him.

When has the president gone to congress? The last was bush for 9-11 they have been using that since. Obama just used that as an excuse.

[Belsnickel]

(04-10-2018, 11:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When has the president gone to congress? The last was bush for 9-11 they have been using that since. Obama just used that as an excuse.

In all seriousness, while the AUMF against terrorists is broad, I don't see it as broad enough to authorize force for attacking Assad for gassing his own people. I know there is a lot of talk about revisiting it because of the length of time and the way it was worded, but even with that it isn't going to cover Assad. I find the fact that it has been used for the fight against ISIS to be extraordinary (though I may be incorrect that it has, if someone would let me know, that would be great).

[StLucieBengal]

(04-11-2018, 09:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, while the AUMF against terrorists is broad, I don't see it as broad enough to authorize force for attacking Assad for gassing his own people. I know there is a lot of talk about revisiting it because of the length of time and the way it was worded, but even with that it isn't going to cover Assad. I find the fact that it has been used for the fight against ISIS to be extraordinary (though I may be incorrect that it has, if someone would let me know, that would be great).

It shouldn’t be but that’s not stopped any president who wanted to use force. Obama just didn’t want to, decided to let Russia and Iran take the. Lead.

Obama was pro Iran.

[GMDino]

(04-11-2018, 12:33 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It shouldn’t be but that’s not stopped any president who wanted to use force.   Obama just didn’t want to, decided to let Russia and Iran take the. Lead.

Obama was pro Iran.

Trump is pro Russia.

Much of the bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation, headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama. Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2018

So here we are.