It's Draft Time: Impeachment Edition

[*michaelsean*]

(07-20-2017, 11:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343059-trump-lawyers-discussing-presidential-pardon-powers-possible-mueller



So let's play "what if".

What if there is some wrong doing found by someone, multiple people, and Trump pardons them?

Then what?

Seriously, I have no idea how that would work. 

I'm not following your question.  

[GMDino]

(07-21-2017, 09:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not following your question.  

Mueller finds Kushner did collude, or there are all kinds of ties to the Russians that the POTUS and his admin lied about.

What steps can the POTUS take to protect his family?  And if he pardons them all...then what?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-21-2017, 09:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Mueller finds Kushner did collude, or there are all kinds of ties to the Russians that the POTUS and his admin lied about.

What steps can the POTUS take to protect his family?  And if he pardons them all...then what?

Besides political fallout, I guess there is no then what.  It's over as far as the people pardoned are concerned.  

[GMDino]

(07-19-2017, 11:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Definition of mercurial
1
:  of, relating to, or born under the planet Mercury
2
:  having qualities of eloquence, ingenuity, or thievishness attributed to the god Mercury or to the influence of the planet Mercury
3
:  characterized by rapid and unpredictable changeableness of mood a mercurial temper
4
:  of, relating to, containing, or caused by mercury
mercuriallyplay \-ē-ə-lē\ adverb

Only quoting this because the term is used in the story:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/21/trump-shakes-up-legal-team-face-widening-russia-probe/498629001/

Quote:In a dramatic shakeup of President Trump's personal legal team, chief counsel Marc Kasowitz stepped aside after the president expressed deep concern for the expanded scope of the special Justice Department inquiry into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, a person familiar with the matter said Friday.


Kasowitz, Trump's longtime and mercurial personal attorney, will remain as an adviser to the team, now being led by John Dowd, a prominent Washington criminal lawyer who will be assisted by frequent Trump defender Jay Sekulow, said the person who was not authorized to comment publicly on the matter. 
Both lawyers were existing members of Trump's personal Russia team but will now take on additional responsibilities. Ty Cobb, recently appointed as a special White House counsel and point-person for the Russia inquiry within the administration, is expected to begin work July 31.

Meanwhile, the public face of Trump's outside legal team also abruptly changes with the resignation of spokesman Mark Corallo.

Corallo, a longtime Republican operative who was once considered a candidate for the White House press secretary job, had expressed frustration with the communication strategy related to the outside legal effort.

The moves come as Trump earlier this week injected yet more chaos into his young administration, warning Russia special counsel Robert Mueller that the financial activities of his family were outside the scope of the Russia inquiry. In a pointed interview with The New York Times, he also said he would not have nominated Jeff Sessions as attorney general had he known Sessions would recuse himself from the inquiry because of his undisclosed communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Sessions' recusal prompted the appointment of Mueller, who has signaled — with the addition of money laundering and financial fraud experts to his staff — that his inquiry will likely include a deep exploration of the Trump family's financial ties to Russia.

Trump and his legal team have long sent warning shots to Mueller, challenging the scope of his authority and the political leanings of his staff even while saying that they have had no indication that the special counsel is investigating the president.

Mueller has been investigating whether the president obstructed justice in connection with his firing of FBI Director James Comey. Trump cited Comey's handling of the Russian investigation as the reason for his dismissal in May.

A primary complaint of the Trump legal team: Some of Mueller's people had made contributions to the Clinton campaign or performed work for the Clinton Foundation.

"I think it's clear that the president is frustrated by the continued witch hunt of the Russia investigation, and he'd love for this to come to a full conclusion so that everyone can focus fully on the thing that he was elected to do,'' White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said.

In the New York Times interview, Trump said Mueller should not have been appointed special counsel, and asserted that an investigation of his finances would amount to a "violation'' of Mueller's authority.

"Look, this is about Russia,'' Trump said in the interview.

Asked whether he would fire Mueller for delving into the family's finances, Trump said: "I can't, I can't answer that question because I don't think it's going to happen.''

[GMDino]

Quote:Manafort Was in Debt to Pro-Russia Interests, Cyprus Records Show


Financial records filed last year in the secretive tax haven of Cyprus, where Paul J. Manafort kept bank accounts during his years working in Ukraine and investing with a Russian oligarch, indicate that he had been in debt to pro-Russia interests by as much as $17 million before he joined Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign in March 2016.

The money appears to have been owed by shell companies connected to Mr. Manafort’s business activities in Ukraine when he worked as a consultant to the pro-Russia Party of Regions. The Cyprus documents obtained by The New York Times include audited financial statements for the companies, which were part of a complex web of more than a dozen entities that transferred millions of dollars among them in the form of loans, payments and fees.

The records, which include details for numerous loans, were certified as accurate by an accounting firm as of December 2015, several months before Mr. Manafort joined the Trump campaign, and were filed with Cyprus government authorities in 2016. The notion of indebtedness on the part of Mr. Manafort also aligns with assertions made in a court complaint filed in Virginia in 2015 by the Russian oligarch, Oleg V. Deripaska, who claimed Mr. Manafort and his partners owed him $19 million related to a failed investment in a Ukrainian cable television business.

After The Times shared some of the documents with representatives of Mr. Manafort, a spokesman, Jason Maloni, did not address whether the debts might have existed at one time. But he maintained that the Cyprus records were “stale and do not purport to reflect any current financial arrangements.”

“Manafort is not indebted to Mr. Deripaska or the Party of Regions, nor was he at the time he began working for the Trump campaign,” Mr. Maloni said. “The broader point, which Mr. Manafort has maintained from the beginning, is that he did not collude with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.” (Mr. Manafort resigned as campaign manager last August amid questions about his past work in Ukraine.)


Still, the Cyprus documents offer the most detailed view yet into the murky financial world inhabited by Mr. Manafort in the years before he joined the Trump campaign.

Mr. Manafort is one of several former Trump associates known to be the focus of inquiries into Russian meddling in the presidential election. He was among those in attendance at a meeting in June 2016 at which Donald Trump Jr. was told they would receive compromising information on Hillary Clinton from a Russian lawyer connected to the Kremlin.

Mr. Manafort’s Cyprus-related business activities are under scrutiny by investigators looking into his finances during and after his years as a consultant to the Party of Regions in Ukraine. He recently filed a long-overdue report with the Justice Department disclosing his lobbying efforts in Ukraine through early 2014, when his main client, President Viktor F. Yanukovych of Ukraine, was ousted in a popular uprising and fled to Russia.

The Cyprus documents detail transactions that occurred in 2012 and 2013, during the peak of Mr. Manafort’s decade-long tenure as a political consultant and investor in the former Soviet republic, where his past work remains a source of controversy. Last year, his name surfaced in a handwritten ledger showing $12.7 million designated for him by the Party of Regions, and documents recovered from his former office in Kiev suggest some of that money was routed through offshore shell companies and disguised as payment for computer hardware.



The byzantine nature of the transactions reflected in the Cyprus records obscures the reasons that money flowed among the various parties, and it is possible they were characterized as loans for another purpose, like avoiding taxes that would otherwise be owed on income or equity investments.

One of the Manafort-related debts listed in the Cyprus records, totaling $7.8 million, was owed to Oguster Management Limited, a company in the British Virgin Islands connected to Mr. Deripaska. The debtor was a Cyprus company, LOAV Advisers, that the Deripaska court complaint says was set up by Mr. Manafort to make investments with Mr. Deripaska, a billionaire close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. The loan is unsecured, bears 2 percent interest and has “no specified repayment date,” according to a financial statement for LOAV.


The other debt, for $9.9 million, was owed to Lucicle Consultants, a Cyprus company that appears to have ties to a Party of Regions member of Parliament, Ivan Fursin. Lucicle, whose precise ownership is unclear, is linked to Mr. Fursin through another offshore entity, Mistaro Ventures, which is registered in St. Kitts and Nevis and listed on a government financial disclosure form that Mr. Fursin filed in Ukraine. 
Mistaro transferred millions to Lucicle in February 2012 shortly before Lucicle made the $9.9 million loan to Jesand L.L.C., a Delaware company that Mr. Manafort previously used to buy real estate in New York. The loan to Jesand was unsecured, with a 3.5 percent interest rate, and payable on demand.

There is no indication from the financial statements that the loans had been repaid as of the time they were filed in December 2015. The statements contain a note saying that as of January 2014, the debts and assets for Lucicle and LOAV had been assigned to “a related party,” which is not identified. The records define related parties as entities that are under common control, suggesting that the assignment did not affect the ultimate debtors and creditors. The statements also said there had been no other changes after the financial reporting period covered by them, which was for the 2013 calendar year.


A spokeswoman for Mr. Deripaska declined to comment. Mr. Deripaska appears to have stopped pursuing his court action against Mr. Manafort and his former investment partners, Rick Gates and Rick Davis, in late 2015. In addition to the $19 million he said he had invested with Mr. Manafort, Mr. Deripaska claimed he paid Mr. Manafort an additional $7.3 million in management fees.

Mr. Manafort has previously said any payments he received for his Ukraine activities were aboveboard and made via wire transfers to an American bank. The Cyprus records suggest that at least some transactions originated with shell companies in tax havens like the Seychelles and the British Virgin Islands, and passed through financial institutions on Cyprus, including Hellenic Bank and Cyprus Popular Bank.


Mr. Manafort’s name does not show up in the Cyprus records. However, hints of his dealings in Ukraine appear throughout.


A 23-page financial statement for a Cyprus shell, Black Sea View Limited, lists transactions that include one with Pericles Capital Partners. 
Both Black Sea View and Pericles Capital are identified in court papers filed by Mr. Deripaska in the Cayman Islands as part of the corporate structure that Mr. Manafort put together to invest in a Ukrainian telecommunications business, Black Sea Cable. The same statement also reports what are described as $9.2 million in loans received in 2012 from four other entities, including one controlled by two Seychelles companies, Intrahold A.G. and Monohold A.G., which Ukrainian authorities have asserted were involved in the looting of public assets by allies of the Yanukovych government. The Black Sea Cable business was controlled at one point by Monohold and Intrahold.


Similarly, Manafort-connected entities appear in the financial records for Lucicle Consultants, the Cyprus shell that received financing from a company associated with Mr. Fursin, the Party of Regions politician in Ukraine. Mr. Fursin did not respond to a request for comment. Lucicle received money from Black Sea View and PEM Advisers Limited, another firm identified in court papers as controlled by Mr. Manafort. It also made the $9.9 million loan to Jesand L.L.C.


Jesand appears to be a conflation of Jessica and Andrea, the names of Mr. Manafort’s two daughters. In hacked text messages belonging to Andrea Manafort that were posted last year on a website used by Ukrainian hackers, Jesand is mentioned in the context of financial dealings involving the Manaforts. Jesand was used by Mr. Manafort and his daughter Andrea in 2007 to buy a Manhattan condominium for $2.5 million.


The condo was one of several expensive pieces of real estate that Mr. Manafort bought, often with cash, during and after his time in Ukraine. 


He also invested millions with his son-in-law, Jeffrey Yohai, who set up a business to buy and redevelop luxury properties in the Los Angeles area. The business failed amid accusations of fraud by another former investor, who claimed Mr. Yohai had exploited his connection to Mr. Manafort to raise funds.

Last year, while trying to salvage his investments with Mr. Yohai, Mr. Manafort embarked on a borrowing spree in the United States, obtaining mortgages totaling more than $20 million on properties controlled by him and his wife. The F.B.I. and the New York attorney general’s office are investigating some of Mr. Manafort’s real estate dealings, including the loans he obtained last year.

[GMDino]

With so much happening the whole Russian thing has gotten a little away from the media and the country...but the investigation goes on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/09/01/thats-all-trumps-lawyers-have/?utm_term=.f3d842b7ef1b&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1

[/url]

Quote:[url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-attorneys-lay-out-arguments-against-obstruction-of-justice-probe-to-mueller-1504207495]The Wall Street Journal reported this week on two memos President Trump’s lawyers prepared for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III:

Quote:

One memo submitted to Mr. Mueller by the president’s legal team in June laid out the case that Mr. Trump has the inherent authority under the constitution to hire and fire as he sees fit and therefore didn’t obstruct justice when he fired Mr. Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in May, these people said.

Another memo submitted the same month outlined why Mr. Comey would make an unsuitable witness, calling him prone to exaggeration, unreliable in congressional testimony and the source of leaks to the news media, these people said.

As legal arguments, these are pathetic. Taking the last one first, arguing to Comey’s long-time colleague Mueller that Comey is a liar won’t win the day, nor does it pass the laugh test. Comey’s testimony will be lined up against written evidence and other witness testimony and actually may come out looking even more credible as a result. This is the sort of weak assertion one would make on Sean Hannity’s show; it’s not worthy of consideration by Mueller or any other serious prosecutor.


The “he can fire at will” argument is obviously flawed for at least three reasons. The argument is so bad one wonders if the Trump team is not ready for prime time or is simply trying to provide fodder for his cult-like following to support him if he tries to fire Mueller.
Try 1 month for 99¢
First, simply because Trump has the power to do something doesn’t mean he can do so with corrupt intent. That is the essence of bribery and other corruption statutes. Trump has the power to veto a bill, but not if it is a quid pro quo for a bribe. Jed Shugerman of Fordham law school explains, “Even if the president has the power to do something, he can’t exercise that power for an illegal purpose. A president can order a military strike, but if his intent was to kill a person who slept with his wife, he is guilty of murder.” He continues, “And if he fires someone in order to impede a valid investigation into his own campaign, which Trump has essentially confessed on national TV, he is guilty of obstruction of justice. If they were debating only that basic point with Mueller, then their client is in serious trouble.”

Second, firing Comey isn’t the half of it. Trump first tried to shut down the prosecution by asking Comey directly, then by imploring his director of national intelligence Dan Coats and his NSA director Mike Rogers to intervene. When that did not work he not only fired Comey but concocted a phony cover story, sent his vice president out to misrepresent the reason for the firing, tried to intimidate Comey when he hinted at the existence of White House tapes and then retaliated against him with his attempt to call off prosecution.


Third, Mueller has the option, as did the independent prosecutors in Watergate, to make a referral — in essence a recommendation — to the House to proceed with impeachment. There is little doubt that the course of action as it has been described by witnesses and credible press accounts lines up with the articles of impeachment the House was ready to approve in Watergate. In Article 1, for example, the House was prepared to allege that Nixon had been “interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees.”


Jeffrey Toobin has reached the same conclusion (“if Comey was telling the truth in this memo, and obviously there’s a dispute about that from the FBI — from the White House, but if he’s telling the truth, I don’t know how anyone can see this comment as anything but obstruction of justice”) as has former Republican White House ethics counsel Richard Painter. (“I believe obstruction of justice would be occurring if there were an express or implied threat to fire the FBI director if he did not drop the Flynn investigation or other parts of the Russia investigation,” he said. “That’s obstruction of justice. The president fired the FBI director.”)

In sum, the two memos to the special prosecutor are so lacking in merit one wonders why Trump’s attorneys bothered. As Constitutional guru Larry Tribe remarked to me, “To be candid, if the memos submitted by the President’s lawyers are as the Wall Street Journal reports, they’re quite stupid. Nothing in the analysis the Journal recounts could possibly persuade anyone remotely familiar with the constitutional origins of the impeachment clause, its historical interpretation, or its settled objectives.” Maybe the president needs better lawyers.

[GMDino]

https://www.facebook.com/AllYourBasesAreOurs/posts/1604616302906985

Quote:Week in Review:

1) Trump opens the week by retweeting convicted felon and fellow Christian adulterer D'Nesh D'Sousa claiming once again the Nazis were non-violent innocent victims at the SF rally.

Then follows up with a Mother Teressa quote

2) Transcripts of known Russian Mafia associate Felix Sater become public where he is quoted as saying "Our boy can become President of the U.S. and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putin's team to buy into this. I will manage the process"

3) In between tweeting at the "fake media" and other assorted enemies Trump begins to focus on Harvey's devastation 

4) Trump arrives in Texas and praises crowd turnout for his speech in the middle of a disaster

5) Rumors abound that Mueller enlisted the NY AG to prosecute Manafort since POTUS pardons do not apply to state crimes

6) In the middle of Harvey's devastation Trump tweets about Hillary Clinton again.

7) In a rare moment of near humility the WH Ogre with Uncle Ruckus Eye Syndrome admits repealing Obama's disaster relief EOs may have been a bad idea.

8) Multiple Pro-Trump accounts retweet pictures of Condaleesa Rice claiming it is Michelle Obama shopping during a natural disaster and claiming Obama was golfing during Katrina.

9) A draft of the original letter to fire Comey surfaces. It clearly states he is being fired for the Russia investigation. Trump's lawyers did not allow him to release it but client/lawyer privilege does not apply because both Pence and Miller saw it. This also contradicts Pence's previous statements on Comey's firing

10) After Trump supporters bragged that Trump had put North Korea in it's place like no POTUS before, North Korea lobs a GFY class missile over Japan

11) Mueller enlists the IRS CI unit in Russia probe

12) In between taking credit for the previous administration's economy and tweeting about Texas Trump once again retweets bot profiles that regularly post noted Neo-Nazi Ben "Zyklon B" Garrison's art work

13) Trump gives a speech about his tax plan. It becomes clear there is no plan for reform on his end just the usual tax cuts

14) WaPo runs a story stating Trump signed an agreement to build Trump Tower Moscow nearly to the day he announced he "had no ties to Russia at all" during the election

15) Trump continues to focus on Texas and has less Trumpian moments. Even taking pictures with black children (proving he isn't a racist) and serving food to victims in an actual Presidential moment

16) GOP law maker Ron DeSantis who ignored 8 BENGHAZZZEYYY investigations that cleared the administration of all wrongdoing attempts to enact legislation giving Mueller a 6 month time frame to finish his investigation

17) Rep Rorabacher famed from the WaPo tape where he and Trump were accused of being on Putin's payroll continues to push for a pardon for Assange.

18) Trump attacks South Korea trade agreements in the middle of escalating North Korean nuclear brinksmanship

19) Gen Mattis tables Trump's trans-ban saying they need 6 months to determine how to go about initiating the ban. This is seen by most as a stall as most of the brass are against the ban

20) In a shocking move Paul Ryan stands up to Trump and says he is against DACA repeal

21) The President's babysitter Gen Kelly is said to be removing famed reality TV nutcase Omorosa from the WH staff for triggering Trump with fake news stories.

22) It is announced the US will search Russian Consulate in SF both offices and staff apartments.

23) Trump's own DOJ announces they have found no evidence that Obama "tapped" Trump's wires.Shooting down a favorite Trump lie. Trump supporters notably quiet on this one.

24) Trump tweets that he may stop trade and business with any country (China) trading with North Korea.

What did I forget???

[GMDino]

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/353102-trump-faces-key-deadline-on-russia-sanctions?amp

Quote:Trump faces key deadline on Russia sanctions

 SHARE ?subject=Trump%20faces%20key%20deadline%20on%20Russia%20sanctions&body=http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/353102-trump-faces-key-deadline-on-russia-sanctions
The Trump administration is facing a key deadline on implementing sanctions against Russia for its election interference and other activities.

By the start of October, the administration is required to issue guidance on who is part of Russia's defense and intelligence sectors. The individuals named will be targeted under a new sanctions law; the guidance will also determine what entities will be off-limits to U.S. and other businesses.

The guidance will provide more clarity to lawmakers, businesses, and others on how Trump plans to apply the sanctions power.

"The administration is going to need to be able to define this in a way that doesn't kind of throw EU allies under the bus, doesn't throw non-EU allies under the bus," said Brian O'Toole, an economic sanctions expert who worked at the Treasury between 2009 and 2017, at Atlantic Council event in Washington on Friday.

"It will be interesting to see how they scope this," O'Toole said. "That will give us a lot more insight into how these sanctions are going to be applied."

The guidance could reveal whether Trump plans to bring the full force of the sanctions law against Moscow or instead lessen the blow of penalties.

"I think Congress wanted to give the administration flexibility to come up with an implementing plan," said Peter Harrell, a former State Department official under Obama who worked on sanctions issues.

"The question then becomes, will the Trump administration use the flexibility appropriately to deal with hard issues, or will they use the flexibility to really minimize the intended impact of the sanctions?"

Trump begrudgingly signed the Russia sanctions bill into law at the start of August after Congress passed it with a veto-proof majority.

He slammed the bill, which restricts his ability to ease penalties on Moscow, as "seriously flawed" and said it contained "a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions."

While the law was intended to tie Trump's hands, it also included language that gives the new administration leeway on defining the elements of Russia's defense and intelligence sectors.

It states that the new sanctions will be levied on individuals who knowingly engage in "significant" transactions with "a person that is part of, or operates for or on behalf of, the defense or intelligence sectors" of the Russian government, including Moscow's main intelligence director, the GRU, and federal security service, the FSB.

The broad language, however, has left questions about what constitutes a "significant" transaction and what Russian entities are targeted by the new provision.
Congress gave Trump 60 days to spell out what entities belong to Russia's defense and intelligence sectors.

Lawmakers likely provided the administration flexibility in order to deal with thorny issues related to arms sales, such as European Union and other allies purchasing weapon systems from Russia.

Yet the broad language in the law worries some American businesses, especially those already operating in the Russian market.

"We want to see sanctions that reach their intended effect and that don't simply cede market share to foreign companies," Daniel Russell, president and CEO of the U.S.-Russia Business Council, said at the Atlantic Council on Friday. "We'd like to see that clarify be provided regarding the covered entities that primarily and directly constitute Russia's defense and intelligence sector and specify the entities that aren't covered."

When signing the bill in August, Trump himself singled out the defense sector sanctions as being aimed at those who "negatively affect American companies and those of our allies."

Sanctions related to the provision go into effect in 180 days of the law's enactment, or at the start of February. But Trump is also allowed to delay sanctions on parties if they are reducing the number of transactions with Russia's intelligence or defense sectors.

The White House did not return a request for comment on when to expect the guidance.

Since Congress passed the legislation, tensions have flared between Moscow and Washington. Russia has expelled hundreds of U.S. diplomats in retaliation to the new penalties. Earlier this month, the Trump administration responded "in parity" by shuttering Moscow's oldest consulate in the United States and two trade annexes. The moves drew furor from Russia, as well as threats of further repercussions.

Lawmakers in Washington, particularly Democrats, have been critical of Trump's approach to Russia. Trump offered praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin on the campaign trail and, as president, has repeatedly expressed the desire to pursue warmer relations with Moscow.

Trump has also at times cast doubt on the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia interfered in the presidential election, though the president said he raised the issue repeatedly with Putin during a face-to-face meeting in July.

Trump's position on Russia has also been seen in the context of the ongoing investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Moscow, spearheaded by special counsel Robert Mueller.

But even those who have been critical of the president's behavior with respect to Russia have welcomed the administration's latest moves, which include the Justice Department requiring the American version of RT - Moscow's state-run news outlet - to register as a foreign agent, meaning its content will be labeled Russian propaganda.

"I think that we're now seeing a much stronger pushback against Russian interference than in the last months of Obama's administration and in the early months of the administration," Dalibor Rohac, an expert on Europe at the American Enterprise Institute, told The Hill earlier this month.

Trump has also selected former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a Republican, to serve as his ambassador to Russia. Huntsman was swiftly confirmed this week, earning bipartisan praise.

"I don't think the president could have selected a stronger person to be ambassador to Russia," Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters on Thursday.

Trump's choice to serve as the top U.S. diplomat overseeing European issues, who was also confirmed by the Senate on Thursday, has also committed to Congress to implement "the terms of this legislation as it was intended."

"The tools that Congress has made available are very important tools for raising the costs vis- -vis the Russian government," Wess Mitchell, now assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, said during his confirmation hearing on Sept. 19.

The law, known as the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, passed Congress in July and also contains other deadlines for the administration with regards to Russia sanctions.

By Oct.1, the Treasury Department must also modify existing directives limiting the amount of time U.S. banks can lend to Russian banks and to Russian energy companies. Those sanctions are related to Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula in 2014.

By the start of November, the Treasury also must revise a directive that prohibits U.S. companies from providing technology and services to Russian arctic, deep water, and shale oil projects in Russia. The revision will expand the policy to projects that Russian companies have outside Russia.

At some point, the administration must also decide whether to impose sanctions on individuals invested in Russian pipeline projects, such as the Nord Stream II natural gas pipeline. On the matter, the administration is required to coordinate with European allies.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Hi, I'm GMDino, and I don't have any opinions of my own, so here's an article someone else wrote.

[GMDino]

(10-01-2017, 05:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hi, I'm GMDino, and I don't have any opinions of my own, so here's an article someone else wrote.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2017, 05:23 PM)GMDino Wrote:

You like gifs right?

[GMDino]

(10-01-2017, 05:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

You like gifs right?

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-BengalsBoard-Code-of-Conduct

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2017, 05:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-BengalsBoard-Code-of-Conduct

I didn't say it, the gif did!  Feel free to narc away though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2017, 05:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-BengalsBoard-Code-of-Conduct

She's clearly saying you are #1.  Why would you have an issue with that?  You like gifs!

[Dill]

(10-01-2017, 04:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/353102-trump-faces-key-deadline-on-russia-sanctions?amp

The White House did not return a request for comment on when to expect the guidance.

That is rather concerning. I wonder if it's intentional or just disorganization.

[Luvnit2]

(10-02-2017, 03:12 AM)Dill Wrote: That is rather concerning. I wonder if it's intentional or just disorganization.

Obama obstructed for 8 years. Hillary obstructed federal prosecution by deleting. Did you voice your concerns? or ignore it because you are a snowflake liberal?

[GMDino]

(10-02-2017, 12:57 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Obama obstructed for 8 years. Hillary obstructed federal prosecution by deleting. Did you voice your concerns? or ignore it because you are a snowflake liberal?

This isn't about Obama or Clinton.

If you had a concern over their "obstruction" you should be concerned now too.

[Dill]

(10-02-2017, 12:57 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Obama obstructed for 8 years. Hillary obstructed federal prosecution by deleting. Did you voice your concerns? or ignore it because you are a snowflake liberal?

I don't recall Obama "obstructing" his own state department week after week impeding diplomatic moves during an international crisis.   But I did voice "concerns" about misrepresentations of Obama/Clinton circulating in Right Wing media. Clinton did not "obstruct justice" by deleting emails. She was asked to determine herself which were relevant and archive them, following Department of State Rules.  Those rules also allowed for deletion after 60 days.  Common practice. Then one of the SEVEN Benghazi committees formed to bring down Clinton's numbers subpoenaed all her emails months AFTER the remaindered 30,000 were gone.  Fox didn't explain it that way?

Now I am wondering if you have anything to say about Trump's current performance. You are ok with lack of coordination between the President and DoS during an international conflict?   If US Allies in the region want to know if the DoS really represents the president, should Tillerson first ask them if they voiced their concerns about Hillary's emails?

[GMDino]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-russia-policy-f56bb386-aed1-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98-20171011-story.html

Quote:Leading lawmakers wonder why Trump Is dragging feet on Russia sanctions


On Wednesday, leading senators from both parties, Maryland Democrat Ben Cardinand Arizona Republican John McCain criticized the Trump administration for not meeting a deadline for implementing new sanctions on Russia's defense and intelligence sectors.
"The delay calls into question the Trump administration's commitment to the sanctions bill which was signed into law more than two months ago, following months of public debate and negotiations in Congress," they said in a statement.

"In addition to the administration's lack of responsiveness on this deadline, there does not appear to be a significant diplomatic effort to engage our allies in Europe and lead an effort to increase pressure on Moscow," they added. Several European countries bristled at the stepped-up sanctions provisions, especially those dealing with energy, fearing it could scupper business ties between Europe and Moscow.
The lawmakers also noted that after writing to the administration on Sept. 28 urging an implementation plan for these sanctions, they have yet to receive a response.

Cardin, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and McCain, chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, were the chief sponsors of the sanctions legislation in question, which passed the Senate by a 98-2 vote. The measure was part of a legislative push to give Congress more control over Russia sanctions, and to increase the scope of U.S. economic pressure on Moscow.
President Donald Trump was openly displeased with the tougher sanctions legislation, and argued that Congress was impinging on his executive powers, though he signed them into law. The question hanging in the Senate now is whether they'll actually be implemented.

[GMDino]

Holy hell. Wikileaks asked Don Jr for help in arranging for Julian Assange to be Australia’s ambassador to the US  https://t.co/go3xWC5586

— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) November 13, 2017