Michael Cohen plea

[GMDino]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/donald-trump-national-enquirer-allies-defect-david-pecker-michael-cohen

Quote:...Trump’s most powerful media ally next to Fox News has broken with him. According to two sources briefed on the Cohen investigation, prosecutors granted immunity to David Pecker, chairman of The National Enquirer publisher American Media Inc., and A.M.I.’s chief content officer, Dylan Howard, so they would describe Trump’s involvement in Cohen’s payments to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal during the 2016 campaign. The Wall Street Journalfirst reported Pecker’s cooperation on Wednesday night. (Pecker and Howard did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Southern District of New York declined to comment.)


Pecker’s apparent decision to corroborate Cohen’s account, and implicate Trump in a federal crime, is another vivid example of how isolated Trump is becoming as the walls close in and his former friends look for ways out. “Holy shit, I thought Pecker would be the last one to turn,” a Trump friend told me when I brought up the news. Trump and Pecker have been close for years. According to the Trump friend, Pecker regularly flew on Trump’s plane from New York to Florida. In July 2013, Trump tweeted that Pecker should become C.E.O. of Time magazine. “He’d make it exciting and win awards!”


During the 2016 campaign, Pecker provided invaluable media support to Trump by regularly attacking his Republican rivals and Hillary Clinton. At times, it seemed like the Enquirer operated as a de-facto arm of the campaign. In October 2015, I reported that Trump aides were a source for an Enquirer article exposing Ben Carson’s malpractice lawsuits (“Bungling Surgeon Ben Carson Left Sponge in Patient’s Brain!”). Pecker denied it at the time. In June, The Washington Post reported that the Enquirer routinely sent stories to Trump to review prior to publication. (The Enquirer denied that as well.) During the transition, rumors circulated that Trump was considering Pecker for a prime ambassadorship. Last summer, Pecker reportedly brought an adviser to Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman to meet Trump in the Oval Office to help him expand A.M.I.’s business.
But that was before federal prosecutors investigating Cohen subpoenaed A.M.I. Pecker’s friendship with Trump now seems to be over. According to a source close to A.M.I., Pecker and Trump haven’t spoken in roughly eight months. Howard remains particularly angry at Trump, two people close to Howard told me. “There is no love lost,” one person familiar with Howard’s thinking said. Another person said Howard “hates Trump” and feels “used and abused by him.”



It’s likely that more Trump relationships will be stress-tested in the weeks to come as Trump’s legal peril escalates. Cohen’s lawyer Lanny Davis has given a series of cable-news interviews intimating that Cohen has valuable and damaging information on Trump to share with Mueller—including the claim that Trump had foreknowledge of Russia’s hacking of Clinton’s e-mails. One source close to Cohen told me Cohen wants to tell Mueller that Trump discussed the release of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s e-mails during the weekend when the Access Hollywood "grab ’em by the *****” tape dominated the news cycle.

More at the link.

[*bfine32*]

(08-23-2018, 03:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Funny you never said that when Republicans insisted that Obama just won because he was black and not based on his merits.


And you don't really want to talk about the topics either because whenever anyone tries to disagree with Trump you just claim they are mentally ill.

As to this topic: I've already said that if Trump knowingly assisted the Russians in illegally influencing our election he should be subject to impeachment.

I've talked about the topic plenty.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-23-2018, 03:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/donald-trump-national-enquirer-allies-defect-david-pecker-michael-cohen



More at the link.

Is Mr. Pecker related to the guy who shut down the Ghostbusters' containment grid?

[GMDino]

(08-23-2018, 04:04 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Is Mr. Pecker related to the guy who shut down the Ghostbusters' containment grid?

[ballsofsteel]

Trump is a tool. The Koch brothers are pulling his strings.

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2018, 04:54 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Trump is a tool. The Koch brothers are pulling his strings.

This is a very ignorant statement. The Koch Brothers are at odds with the GOP because of Trump, because they don't like him. The GOP is actually undergoing a split with the Koch's as a result of the GOP support of Trump.

[Yojimbo]

(08-23-2018, 04:04 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Is Mr. Pecker related to the guy who shut down the Ghostbusters' containment grid?

“Yes it’s true. This man has no dick.”

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-23-2018, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Russia was going to interfere in the election they would have been sure to let Trump know all about it.  They would want favors in return.


I have never heard of a lobbyist that has given support to a candidate's attempt to get elected but kept it a secret from the candidate.  Anyone who goes to the trouble of influencing an election will want something in return.

Your logic in this point is exceedingly poor in my opinion.  Preferring Trump over Clinton is reason enough for them to attempt to influence the election.  It is absolutely not necessary, or even logical, for them to let Trump know about it ahead of time.

(08-23-2018, 01:45 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's pretty much made up.  They prefer one over the other because they think he's better for them.  It doesn't have to be a direct quid pro quo for them to attempt to help him.  

100% accurate.

(08-23-2018, 02:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't.

I have never once heard of any person or organization who took major steps to help a candidate get elected without letting the candidate know about those steps.

People who go to the cost and/or trouble of influencing an election always want something in return.  So they are going to be 100% sure the candidate knows he is beholden to them for the help.

Really?  You've been privy to a lot of classified information regarding foreign influences on our electoral process?  I'll give you one for free, Netanyahu speaking before Congress in 2015.

(08-23-2018, 02:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not so sure about that. With some candidates, having them in office and being corrosive there might be rewarding enough for Putin.

Brexit is an example. Russia wanted Brexit and supported the Brexit movement because of that. There was little to nothing to gain from these folks beyond Brexit.

I'm not super keen on your example but your overall point is solid.  In probably every election in a major country there is a preferred candidate by various other countries.  The extent that they meddle or subtly influence will vary, but to not think that often times one candidate is preferred over the other would be naïve in the extreme.

[Dill]

(08-23-2018, 03:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In my life I'm pretty sure we've never looked for more ways to find that a President didn't win on his own merit than we have Trump:

He lost the popular vote

Comey re-opened Hill's email

The Russians did it

I'm most likely missing a couple.

I'm almost to the point that I will de pulling for a Dem in 2020, just so folks will stop it and get back to topics.

An odd point to make, if it is a point.

Comey did re-open the email issue, didn't he? And the Russians did interfere with the election on an unprecedented scale.  Those aren't "alternative" facts, right?  You forgot to add Benghazi and decades of faux-Clinton scandals to depress the Dem vote.

And in what would Trump's "merit" consist here? His command of foreign policy? His business acumen? No. He appealed to the darkest, most xenophobic impulses in voters--and those voters were prepared to accept the lowest standards of candidate integrity and ethics to put their man in office.

People who look for excuses as to why Hillary lost are just trying to make the U.S. electorate look better than it is. We have a problem that is bigger than Trump, and it won't go away when Trump is gone.

[Dill]

(08-23-2018, 11:53 AM)hollodero Wrote: That's fair.

It doesn't help though that Trump denies any influence on his behalf and calls media outlets that state the obvious the real enemy of the people.

Also, that Trump opooses the findings of his own intelligence agencies and asks the world to believe Putin's strong denial over them.

Also, that campaign members met with all kinds of shady or sanctioned Russians all the time, not just that one time in Trump Tower.

Also, that he doesn't stand up for American democracy against Putin.

Also, that there was a dossier alleging all kinds of ties that never was debunked at all, and in parts confirmed.

Also, that Trump lied all the time about his own (business + private) ties to Russia and Putin.

Also, that Congress had to force his hand regarding sanctions.

Also, that he always meets with Putin/Lawrow in relative secrecy.

Also, that Roger Stone had contacts with the responsible hacker and with wikileaks, who Trump referenced in length.

Also, that Deutsche Bank, famous for Russian money laundering operations, gave Trump money when no one else would.

Also, that Manafort obviously offered a Russian oligarch he owed money information about the Trump campaign, that he worked with for free despite having all kinds of financial trouble.

Also, that Putin obviously can make Trump make decisions like stopping joint troop exercises with Korea.

Also, that he calls the Russia investigation a witch hunt that needs to be stopped.

Also, that Papadopoulos bragged about having access to Russian hacked emails.


So... for me, the case against Trump consists of more than "Putin helped Trump, so obviously collusion". You're right, that probably was to be expected in any case. Was Trump really involved in Russian operations, that I don't know. His character isn't exculpatory though. 

Ok  . . . . but besides THAT there is no evidence, right?  Nothing at all.  

[Dill]

(08-23-2018, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Russia was going to interfere in the election they would have been sure to let Trump know all about it.  They would want favors in return.

I have never heard of a lobbyist that has given support to a candidate's attempt to get elected but kept it a secret from the candidate.  Anyone who goes to the trouble of influencing an election will want something in return.

Fred, I think you may be re-imaging a geopolitical relation between global adversaries on the analogy of U.S. political lobbiests and donors trying to influence a candidate with quid pro quo offers. But that is not a good analogy.

You are right that in most cases (though perhaps not all) it would make sense to make a candidate aware of support--especially the candidate will need it again.  If my group provides massive donations and turns out thousands of voters for candidate X, I want him to know what I want him to do.

However, in the case of Russia and U.S. elections, the situation is shaped by very different laws, relations between the players, the quantity and type of resources over which they dispose, and end goals.  The Russians, who cannot directly participate in U.S. elections, have to first of all think of the candidates in terms of Russian national interest as Putin defines it. Hillary would promote democracy and political transparency in Russia, not to mention that she had a superior understanding of international affairs.  She would lock Obama's sanctions in place and likely increase them. She understood the leverage given the U.S. by NATO and the EU economy vis a vis Russia's pitiful alliances and economy and would work to strengthen that. She was as hawkish as she was focused, not easy to play.

Trump, on the other hand, had little focus/impulse control, an admiration for Putin's power to the point of hero worship, and no understanding of international affairs or foreign policy, or law, or the levers of institutional power. He loved praise and attacked any who spoke truth to power, especially the free press. He was susceptible to conspiracy theories and kept many secrets. He responded to a voter base which shared these qualities and for whom he loved to perform. He could be counted on to choose like-mindedness over competence in staffing his cabinet and NSC, and to ignore experienced advisors. Any trained intelligence agent from any country could see what an easy "mark" he would be for psychological pressures and incentives. Events have born this out.  Many voters saw it coming before Trump was elected.

So the point is that it would be risky and unnecessary for Putin to ask Trump for "favors." In addition to leaving a trail of collusion, any claim that Russia put him in office might put Trump off because, as part of his psychological profile, he needs to believe he won the election on his own merits--including the popular vote (if you discount 3-5 million illegal alien voters). "Of course you won on your merits," agrees Putin, controlling his facial expression to reassure his mark (the translator cannot suppress a smirk, though). Just having him in the White House denigrating U.S. allies, whipping up trade wars, undermining his own intel services, and increasing divisions within the U.S. as well, was worth the investment. Far beyond anything reasonably hoped for in 2015. There is no "asking" Trump for favors now; instead there is shaping his foreign policy understanding and actions to favor Russia. You saw at the magnificent Helsinki Summit how Trump responds to Putin suggestions, and then how our own policy experts must work to re-shape Trump's newly implanted Putin ideas and proposals to protect our national interests.

So I just don't see a scenario in which the Russian Ambassador says "We did this for you, now repeal those sanctions."  Rather, I see the Ambassador telling Trump how "Obama was afraid to meet Putin without advisors, and too weak to recognize the Russian appropriation of Crimea. Think of the American jobs that would be created if Exxon were again allowed to drill in Siberia. Your own intel service, who always want to be in the room when we speak, are using the Russian collusion story to take you down," etc.

[*bfine32*]

Has this Lanny Davis dude changed anything?

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2018, 03:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Those people must have felt pretty stupid when Obama continued and expanded the war on terror rather than surrendering like so many expected. 

I never expected Obama to "surrender" in the war on terror, and no one I knew expected that.  Who do you know that is Pro-Terrorism?

What we wanted to do was end the war in Iraq that was actually taking away from the war on terror because it had nothing to do with terror attacks.  And Obama withdrew the troops like he promised (in fact Bush was planning the same thing).

[*Nately120*]

(08-29-2018, 01:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never expected Obama to "surrender" in the war on terror, and no one I knew expected that.  Who do you know that is Pro-Terrorism?

What we wanted to do was end the war in Iraq that was actually taking away from the war on terror because it had nothing to do with terror attacks.  And Obama withdrew the troops like he promised (in fact Bush was planning the same thing).

The tried and true playbook against any democrat that I can recall in my lifetime be it Carter/Mondale/Dukakis/Kerry/Obama/Hilly is to claim they will raise taxes and lose wars.  I'm not saying it's true, it's just the go-to knock against them in hyperbolic election spin.

Perhaps this was a longshot of a comment, but I recall the townies in 2008 referring to Obama as "Barak They'll O-Bomb-Us" which was a rather unclever way of saying if we put a democrat in office we're going to look weak and lose the war. I also recall "Al Qaida is hoping Obama wins the election" 

It goes back to the whole "Do you really think 3rd rate dictators would laugh at us and burn our flags if Ronald Reagan were president?" style campaigns.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-29-2018, 01:58 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The tried and true playbook against any democrat that I can recall in my lifetime be it Carter/Mondale/Dukakis/Kerry/Obama/Hilly is to claim they will raise taxes and lose wars.  I'm not saying it's true, it's just the go-to knock against them in hyperbolic election spin.

Perhaps this was a longshot of a comment, but I recall the townies in 2008 referring to Obama as "Barak They'll O-Bomb-Us" which was a rather unclever way of saying if we put a democrat in office we're going to look weak and lose the war.  I also recall "Al Qaida is hoping Obama wins the election" 

It goes back to the whole "Do you really think 3rd rate dictators would laugh at us and burn our flags if Ronald Reagan were president?" style campaigns.

Well they did stop it when he took office, but that's a whole 'nother conspiracy.

[jj22]

These people claiming it's all an attempt to shame Trumps win are pro Putin/Russia and Anti America and our Intel. That's why you see them still using Russian talking points and refusing to acknowledge the attack on this Nation. Blaming good Americans instead of those who attacked the nation they supposedly love.

Trump defenders/supporters (secret or otherwise) want to act like none of what was mentioned happened. As they claim it was the DNC and Hillary that colluded with Russia (to I guess help Trump win), or that the FBI was pro Hillary (as they leaked her investigation for a year and hid Trumps) with nothing to even support those claim. Yet we have an investigation/indictments against the Trump campaign and confessions of collusion from both Trump and Trump Jr . Yet when provided with that they need more proof.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/08/05/trump-tweeted-what/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3fb32795ff83

"If Trump colluded he should be impeached"..... Well here is your proof. Next excuse?

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2018, 10:04 PM)Dill Wrote: So I just don't see a scenario in which the Russian Ambassador says "We did this for you, now repeal those sanctions."  Rather, I see the Ambassador telling Trump how "Obama was afraid to meet Putin without advisors, and too weak to recognize the Russian appropriation of Crimea. Think of the American jobs that would be created if Exxon were again allowed to drill in Siberia. Your own intel service, who always want to be in the room when we speak, are using the Russian collusion story to take you down," etc.

So you don't think they actually discussed any of this at the Trump Tower meeting?

[ballsofsteel]

(08-23-2018, 05:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is a very ignorant statement. The Koch Brothers are at odds with the GOP because of Trump, because they don't like him. The GOP is actually undergoing a split with the Koch's as a result of the GOP support of Trump.

That is exactly what these ultra right conservatives want everyone to think. Why do you think Trump starts dumb shit every week and tweets like a 10 year old every day?
Nothing but a diversion while the Koch brothers work behind the scene to get that Supreme Court where they want it so they can start changing the constitution and do away with social security, medicare, welfare and any other entitlement. Thank You.

[Dill]

(08-29-2018, 03:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you don't think they actually discussed any of this at the Trump Tower meeting?

Depends on what you mean by "this"? 

I suspect the meeting was a "feeler" (not the first) to see what kind of response Russian intel might get, who might be willing to work with them and to what degree. It was to profile people close to Trump.  I am pretty sure no directives from Moscow came through that meeting.

One point I left out of my earlier post--given Trump's character, lack of control, it is certainly possible the Russians have some compromat material. But I still don't see them linking that to a directive. It is possible they may have indirectly let him know they have it, and that would be enough to explain the behavior we see--coupled with his love for Putin's governing style and desire to do business in Russia.

[fredtoast]

(08-29-2018, 08:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Depends on what you mean by "this"? 

I suspect the meeting was a "feeler" (not the first) to see what kind of response Russian intel might get, who might be willing to work with them and to what degree. It was to profile people close to Trump.  I am pretty sure no directives from Moscow came through that meeting.

One point I left out of my earlier post--given Trump's character, lack of control, it is certainly possible the Russians have some compromat material. But I still don't see them linking that to a directive.  It is possible they may have indirectly let him know they have it, and that would be enough to explain the behavior we see--coupled with his love for Putin's governing style and desire to do business in Russia.

Why run the risk of having the meeting if they did not care if Trump knew what they were doing?