It's Draft Time: Impeachment Edition

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-19-2018, 05:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh Jeez yeah, that right shall not be infringed, all hell would break loose if you could not form a well-regulated militia with semi-automatics and bumping stocks.

Then again, as an originalist I suppose this right only refers to arms available in 1788. So machetes, breechloader rifles, double-barreled revolvers and such. I'd sell everyone who wants it a breechloader. If people want something better, they need to be trained by serving in the US army first, at least for a month or two on the home front.

Private ships back then had cannons (or at least carronades), and hundreds of pounds of gunpowder. Just sayin'... The gap between what the military used and what private citizens own is actually much larger than it was back then. Back then private citizens owned the same rifles the military used and could purchase the same ship artillery the navy used. Now people own downgraded, modified, civilian-versions of military rifles and no naval cannons.

That's of course all based off the wrong idea that the 2nd amendment states that if there's advancements in arms from when it was written, that it wouldn't be allowed.

[hollodero]

(02-19-2018, 06:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Private ships back then had cannons (or at least carronades), and hundreds of pounds of gunpowder. Just sayin'... The gap between what the military used and what private citizens own is actually much larger than it was back then. Back then private citizens owned the same rifles the military used and could purchase the same ship artillery the navy used. Now people own downgraded, modified, civilian-versions of military rifles and no naval cannons.

Yeah that's right. People should probably be allowed to own intercontinental missiles and nukes nowadays.

(02-19-2018, 06:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's of course all based off the wrong idea that the 2nd amendment states that if there's advancements in arms from when it was written, that it wouldn't be allowed.

Yeah I know. It was more of a sarcastic note than a serious one. But I just can't bring myself to believing it's good for a society if everyone can possess semi-automatic rifles and bumping stocks and whatnot to shoot 10.000 bullets a second (I know that number is wrong). For the purposes of self-defense a handgun should do, for the purpose of hunting a deer rifle should do.
Someone in here though was a proud owner of a grenade launcher. Yeah well. But sure, constitution, I get that, and well regulated militia - there's the word "regulated" though. :) A mentally unstable person can't be part of a well regulated militia, same goes for an untrained person, so it's only constitutional to deny them assault rifles unless they get proper training and are checked for mental instability. Isn't it. It probably isn't, but still.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-19-2018, 06:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah that's right. People should probably be allowed to own intercontinental missiles and nukes nowadays.



Yeah I know. It was more of a sarcastic note than a serious one. But I just can't bring myself to believing it's good for a society if everyone can possess semi-automatic rifles and bumping stocks and whatnot to shoot 10.000 bullets a second (I know that number is wrong). For the purposes of self-defense a handgun should do, for the purpose of hunting a deer rifle should do.
Someone in here though was a proud owner of a grenade launcher. Yeah well. But sure, constitution, I get that, and well regulated militia - there's the word "regulated" though. :) A mentally unstable person can't be part of a well regulated militia, same goes for an untrained person, so it's only constitutional to deny them assault rifles unless they get proper training and are checked for mental instability. Isn't it. It probably isn't, but still.

As long as a private citizens armed UAV's do only roam 50,000 ft above that landowners 1/4 acre lot, they are obviously only being used for protection.

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2018, 06:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's of course all based off the wrong idea that the 2nd amendment states that if there's advancements in arms from when it was written, that it wouldn't be allowed.

And television stations do not use printing presses so I guess the first amendment does not apply to television, right?


The founding fathers were smart enough to know that things would change over time.  They even included directions on how to amend the Constitution.  People who think the Constitution was not supposed to change with the times are clueless.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 07:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And television stations do not use printing presses so I guess the first amendment does not apply to television, right?


The founding fathers were smart enough to know that things would change over time.  They even included directions on how to amend the Constitution.  People who think the Constitution was not supposed to change with the times are clueless.

There you go, Fred!  Amend the Constitution and modify the 2nd amendment!  Why haven't you and your ilk done exactly that yet?

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2018, 07:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There you go, Fred!  Amend the Constitution and modify the 2nd amendment!  Why haven't you and your ilk done exactly that yet?

So far judicial review has allowed limitations on the second amendment.  But it is always an option.

All I was saying is that the people who wrote the Constitution realized that it would have to change with the times.  People who don't get this don't understand the intent of the framers.

[GMDino]

Back to Mueller....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-lawyer/lawyer-charged-with-lying-in-u-s-probe-of-russia-election-role-idUSKCN1G41YM

Quote:Lawyer charged with lying in U.S. probe of Russia election role


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. special counsel who is investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has charged an attorney with lying about his communications with Rick Gates, a former aide to Donald Trump’s campaign.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller unsealed criminal charges on Tuesday against lawyer Alex van der Zwaan for allegedly lying to the FBI last November about work his law firm performed in 2012 related to Ukraine.

The charge puts pressure on Gates and Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who are both facing criminal charges including conspiracy to launder money and failure to register as foreign agents in connection with their political work for a pro-Russia Ukrainian party.

They have pleaded not guilty. A trial is tentatively expected this fall, though recent media reports have said that Gates is expected to plead guilty in the near future.

Mueller is investigating whether Moscow meddled in the 2016 election and colluded with Trump’s campaign. Trump says there was no collusion and Russia denies interfering with the election.

The charging documents released on Tuesday say van der Zwaan made false statements about the last time he communicated with Gates and another unnamed person, only identified as “Person A.”

In truth, the charge alleges, he spoke with Gates and Person A in September 2016 about the report, and “surreptitiously recorded the calls.”

He also allegedly told investigators he did not know why an email between him and Person A was not produced to the Special Counsel’s office, but had actually deleted or failed to produce emails that were being sought.

Van der Zwaan will appear in court later Tuesday where he is expected to plead guilty. Reuters could not immediately find out who will be representing him.

COOPERATING?
“He is pleading to false statements, which is a relatively small charge. My guess is he is cooperating,” said Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The case underscores the extent of Mueller’s probe and of his interpretation of how far he can investigate as he looks into whether Russia tried to influence the election in favor of Trump by hacking the emails of leading Democrats and distributing disinformation and propaganda online.

Manafort has argued the charges against him fall outside of Mueller’s jurisdiction, because they have nothing to do with Trump’s election.

Under pressure from the U.S. Justice Department, Manafort and Gates retroactively registered as foreign agents for their lobbying and public relations work for Ukraine’s former pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych.

Their lobbying firm received $17.1 million for that work, filings with the Justice Department show.

Tuesday’s court filing does not name the law firm that van der Zwaan worked for, though a 2012 report on former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko that it cited was penned by the prominent international law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

In a statement on Tuesday, a spokeswoman for the firm said it had terminated van der Zwaan’s employment in 2017 and “has been cooperating with authorities in connection with this matter.”

Van der Zwaan’s father in law is Russian billionaire German Khan, the founder of the privately-owned Alfa Bank. Khan was recently named on a list of Russian oligarchs close to the Kremlin that was released by the U.S. Treasury Department.

The 2012 Skadden Arps report on Tymoshenko has proven to be controversial. Lawyers at the firm, including van der Zwaan, wrote it at Manafort’s behest.

The report was used to justify the pre-trial detention of Tymoshenko by her rival, and Manafort’s client, Yanukovych.

Tymoshenko’s prosecution was condemned by numerous governments and the European Union as politically motivated, and she was released from prison after her conviction was thrown out under a revision to Ukraine’s penal code enacted during the closing days of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution.

Tymoshenko filed a civil lawsuit against Manafort and others, claiming he had orchestrated the Skadden Arps investigation and alleging the Ukrainian government had “grossly underestimated” how much Skadden was paid for the work.

The lawsuit was eventually dismissed.

[GMDino]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/22/mueller-adds-new-tax-bank-fraud-charges-against-manafort-gates-422335

Quote:Mueller adds new tax, bank fraud charges against Manafort, Gates
Special counsel files new criminal case against pair in northern Virginia.

By JOSH GERSTEIN
 
02/22/2018 04:39 PM EST
 
Updated 02/22/2018 06:18 PM EST


Special counsel Robert Mueller turned up the pressure on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and aide Rick Gates, as a federal grand jury returned a new indictment Thursday charging the two men with tax and bank fraud.


The new 32-count indictment returned by a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia comes after Mueller separately charged the pair in Washington last year with money laundering and failing to register as foreign agents for their work related to Ukraine.

The new indictment accuses Manafort and Gates of dramatically understating their income on federal tax returns filed from 2010 through 2014. The pair is also accused of bank fraud totaling more than $20 million tied to three loans Manafort applied for in connection with various homes he owns.


In all, Manafort and Gates laundered more than $30 million in income, chiefly from their Ukraine work, the new indictment alleges.


None of the charges currently facing the pair appears to relate directly to the core of Mueller's investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. But the special counsel has jurisdiction to pursue any crimes he finds in the course of his probe, and the new charges Thursday show he is ramping up pressure on the former aides to President Donald Trump.


Some of the alleged bank fraud appears to have overlapped with the Trump campaign. Manafort and Gates joined the campaign in the spring of 2016 to help plan for the Republican National Convention, and Manafort was campaign chairman from May until he resigned on Aug. 19. But the White House has subsequently tried to distance itself from him, with Trump saying at one point that Manafort only worked for him for a “very short period of time.”

The most reliable politics newsletter.


The scrutiny of the pair so far has focused on their lobbying work on behalf of the Ukrainian government and former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych from 2006 to 2015. The initial indictment claimed they generated tens of millions of dollars through that work, which was then laundered through “scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships, and bank accounts.”


Prosecutors claim in the new indictment that Manafort made various misrepresentations to obtain loans, including forging profit-and-loss statements for his consulting businesses.


No new defendants were charged in the latest indictment, but it alleges that the men had a "conspirator" at at least one of the lenders from which Manafort obtained the loans.


In response to one of the profit-and-loss statements provided in connection with a loan request, the unnamed "conspirator" allegedly replied that the document was too obviously faked.


"Looks Dr'd. Can't someone just do a clean excel doc and pdf to me?" the indictment quotes the bank employee as replying.


Based on the description of the loan in the court document, the lender appears to be Providence, R.I.-based Citizens Bank. A spokesman there declined to comment on Thursday.

Prosecutors said the case against Manafort and Gates filed in Washington in October will continue, although it appears a few charges from that indictment are being moved to the Virginia case. Defendants in tax cases have the right to insist on being charged in their home district. Mueller's team said they were willing to consolidate the case in Washington, but either Manafort or Gates declined to agree to be prosecuted on those charges in Washington.


The parallel legal cases will increase the complexity and cost of the legal defense for Manafort and Gates.
Gates' legal team has been in flux recently, with his existing lawyers, Shanlon Wu, Walter Mack and AnneMarie McAvoy, seeking to withdraw for reasons that have not been explained publicly.


Longtime Washington defense lawyer Thomas Green of Sidley Austin formally entered an appearance in the case Thursday and consented to the other lawyers departing.
Lawyers for Manafort and Gates did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the new charges. The judge in the Washington case has imposed a gag order, but the Virginia case will be heard before another judge, T.S. Ellis.

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/23/former-trump-aide-rick-gates-poised-plead-guilty-mueller-probe/358863002/

Quote:Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates pleads guilty, will cooperate with Mueller probe

WASHINGTON — Rick Gates, a former top aide to President Trump's campaign, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and lying to the FBI on Friday, and promised to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.



Gates and Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort were indicted in October on charges that they secretly worked on behalf of a pro-Russian political faction in Ukraine and laundered $4 million in payments through overseas bank accounts.


Prosecutors piled on another 32 counts this week, revealing another indictment accusing the two of lying to obtain millions of dollars in bank loans and of laundering more than $30 million through overseas accounts to pay for real estate and luxury goods while evading U.S. taxes. 
Gates' abrupt guilty plea and his promise to cooperate with Mueller's investigation almost certainly intensifies the legal pressure on Manafort, who participated in some of the episodes that have drawn the attention of the special counsel's investigators, including a 2016 meeting between Trump's son Donald Trump, Jr. and a Russian lawyer offering damaging information about his rival, Hillary Clinton.


Gates pleaded guilty Friday to charges that he conspired to defraud the United States by hiding the money he and Manafort earned working in Ukraine. And he pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents during a meeting three weeks ago, months after he was first indicted. Gates acknowledged that he lied to the FBI about what was said at a 2013 meeting between Manafort and an unidentified member of Congress.


Gates' lawyers moved to withdraw from his case on the day of the interview, launching weeks of legal tumult for Manafort's longtime business associate and widespread speculation about his plans to cooperate with prosecutors. That uncertainty ended on Friday afternoon, when 
Gates stood before a judge in federal court in Washington.

“Guilty, your honor,” Gates told U.S. District Judge Amy Jackson in a packed second-floor courtroom.


Jackson said Gates faces between 57 and 71 months in prison under federal sentencing guidelines, but that he might serve less time depending on the extent of his cooperation with prosecutors. Jackson said Gates can remain free until he is sentenced. 


Asked how he felt while leaving the courthouse after the plea, Gates smiled and said, “Very good.”


Gates' lawyer, Thomas Green, declined to comment, saying he would “keep our powder dry.”


Gatesis the fifth person to plead guilty to a federal crime in Mueller's investigation, and the third Trump campaign aide who has publicly promised to cooperate with investigators.


Prosecutors also have secured guilty pleas from Trump's former national security adviser Mike Flynn and a campaign foreign policy aide, George Papadopoulos, who acknowledged in court documents that he met with a person he thought was tied to the Russian government who was offering "dirt" on Clinton.


Manafort said in a statement on Friday that Gates' plea "does not alter my commitment to defend myself against the untrue piled up charges." 


He said he had "hoped and expected my business colleague would have had the strength to continue the battle to prove our innocence. For reasons yet to surface he chose to do otherwise."


White House strategic communications director Mercedes Schlapp told Fox News on Friday that the charges against Manafort and Gates "have nothing to do with the White House. They have nothing to do with the president." 


More: Mueller's bombshell: Special counsel charges Manafort, Gates and reveals aide's Russia contacts
More: Michael Flynn's guilty plea brings Mueller investigation to Trump inner circle
More: Special counsel indicts Russian nationals for interfering with U.S. elections and political processes


Manafort pleaded not guilty to Mueller's first round of charges, which were filed in Washington in October. The new case against Manafort and Gates, filed in Virginia, remained mostly under seal on Friday morning. Manafort has separately filed a lawsuit asking a court to declare Mueller's appointment illegal and to undo work his office has undertaken. 

[GMDino]

Is "I'm busy" a legitimate excuse? 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/trump-might-be-too-busy-to-talk-to-mueller-says-lawyer.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=s3&utm_campaign=sharebutton-t

Quote:Trump Might Be Too Busy to Talk to Robert Mueller, Says Lawyer


President Trump’s lawyers have long insisted that, despite his public promise to testify to Robert Mueller, their client should not do so because he is a compulsive liar (e.g., the New York Times one month ago: “His lawyers are concerned that the president, who has a history of making false statements and contradicting himself, could be charged with lying to investigators.”). His unstoppable lying is akin to a handicap. Forcing him to speak in circumstances where lying is a crime would be like forcing wheelchair-bound Franklin Roosevelt to dunk a basketball.

Perhaps reconsidering the merits of this defense, Trump’s legal brain trust is floating two new rationales for why he cannot submit to an open interview. “It would be a travesty to waste his (Mr. Trump’s) time and to set a precedent which would cripple a future president,” a Trump lawyer tells The Wall Street Journal.

Everybody surely appreciates Trump’s previously undetectable concern for the long-term well-being of the institution he has been trashing.
But the second objection, the one about wasting time, seems fairly easy to respond to. While Trump may be terribly busy with his regimen of document study, he also spends four to eight hours per day watching television. A Mueller interview might be scheduled for one of the president’s eight-hour television days, so even if the interview took as long as four hours, it would still leave him free for a robust level of screen time. Indeed, Mueller could even talk to the president while the TV was on, so if Trump grew bored with either the questioning or the shows, he could toggle his attention from one to the other.

It really seems like the scheduling issue is something Trump could work around, unless somehow he has some other reason to avoid Mueller.

[BmorePat87]

(02-27-2018, 03:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is "I'm busy" a legitimate excuse? 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/trump-might-be-too-busy-to-talk-to-mueller-says-lawyer.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=s3&utm_campaign=sharebutton-t

To be fair, he only got to golf once when he went down to get Mar-a-Lago chocolate cake visit Parkland. 

Also, executive time takes up 8am to 11am and he only gets to dedicate 1 hour and 45 minutes for meetings during his 11am to 4:15pm work day. I mean, he HAS to take an hour lunch and he needs that 2.5 hours of additional executive time in there. 

If he doesn't get out of the office by 4:15, his aides might not be able to get him his two big macs, two fish filets, and large fry in time for him to be in bed watching Fox at 6.