jimjam wrote:It is interesting that Trumpophiles cannot possible accept that trump, basically, fucked up financially.
It doesn't matter to us. What matters is that he upset the political establishment. We've had enough of them, and there isn't much that Trump could do or not do that would make them more appealing to us. Ergo, it's not about Trump. It never has been really.
jimjam wrote:So ........... trump paid $407,000,000 for the Plaza and, a few years later, the banks took it away from him and sold it for $325,000,000 and certain Trumpophiles would have us believe this and other financial fuck ups are simply a demonstration of trump's genius :?: .
Actually, Trump didn't pay $407M. Most of that was paid by Citibank, which is why they were able to take title to the property for non-performance on the loan. Trump avoided bankruptcy, and maintained control of signature properties like Trump Tower. Given the situation he was in, that is essentially turning lemons into lemonade.
jimjam wrote:Like July 17, 1972, the date of the Watergate break-in, Trump Junior’s June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting has become the load-bearing date upon which the greater scandal rests.
Except the establishment was sloppy here. Donald Trump apparently had no knowledge of the meeting, and Trump Jr. didn't solicit the meeting. In actual fact, the Russian attorney in question was allowed in to the the United States by the Attorney General's office on an immigration parole (an extraordinary measure), because her visa application was rejected. This suggests deep state involvement in the attorney in question's very presence in the US. It was a publicist who solicited the meeting with Trump, suggesting that the attorney had knowledge of incriminating activity on the part of Clinton. Trump was eager to hear about this information. That is not a crime. The solicitation was apparently misleading, as the attorney only wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act. So the meeting was cut short. So this "load bearing date" means nothing. Also, since the allegation is a conspiracy, statute of limitations runs from the last overt act, not the first.
As it is, nothing can be proven as a matter of law regarding the server getting hacked, because it is not in evidence and the state of the server is more than likely compromised at this point. The load bearing aspect of the investigation is that Trump solicited Russia to hack the DNC and Podesta's server. Hillary's server had already been hacked, so clearly Trump had nothing to with that. There is virtually no evidence that Trump somehow bankrolled or participated in the hacking of Podesta or the DNC.
An odd aspect of the case is that the Russian attorney--actively lobbying for the Russian government--violated the terms of her immigration parole, which is a crime. She has not been charged by the independent counsel, even though it is dispositive of fact that she committed a crime. So this is nothing more than a self-preservation operation by the deep state.
jimjam wrote:So ............ an "expert" lawyer (presumably on Fox Fake News) has access to the same info that Robert Mueller and Mr. Schneiderman have?
jimjam wrote:Hindsite, this will take weeks/months to play out.
From my perspective, this looks like nothing more than Hillary Clinton donors recuperating their donations at taxpayers expense.
jimjam wrote:Trump owes much of his business success, and by extension his presidency, to a flow of highly suspicious money from Russia.
Highly suspicious money from Russia is not a crime. Landlords are generally not held criminally liable for the actions of their tenants.
jimjam wrote:Over the past three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to Russian mobsters or oligarchs have owned, lived in, and even run criminal activities out of Trump Tower and other Trump properties.
Golly gee willikers! That's just fascinating jimjam. Can you tell me one of them who is the subject of Mueller's investigation? So far, he seems to be trying to put something up Manafort's arse. It's an odd thing if what you say is true. The only criminal act that we know of and the person who did it is the Russian attorney who violated the terms of her immigration parole and conducted some unlawful lobbying.
jimjam wrote:Many used his apartments and casinos to launder untold millions in dirty money.
You don't say! You know what? I bet some people used cocaine and had hookers in his hotels too! Oooh!
jimjam wrote:Some ran a worldwide high-stakes gambling ring out of Trump Tower—in a unit directly below one owned by Trump.
Oh, no! Gambling? Oh my gosh. Somebody call the poker police.
jimjam wrote:Others provided Trump with lucrative branding deals that required no investment on his part.
That's how endorsements generally work. That's why sports stars don't have to invest in Nike when they make "Air Jordan" shoes, etc. They are the ones getting paid.
jimjam wrote:Taken together, the flow of money from Russia provided Trump with a crucial infusion of financing that helped rescue his empire from ruin, burnish his image, and launch his career in television and politics.
"Money from Russia" still means nothing in terms of law. The US normalized diplomatic relations with Russia.
jimjam wrote:“They saved his bacon,” says Kenneth McCallion, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Reagan administration who investigated ties between organized crime and Trump’s developments in the 1980s.
The 80s... that's 30 years ago. A little past the statute of limitations, don't you think?
jimjam wrote:Semion Mogilevich is definitely a Russian business man .
And a Jew! (gulp)
jimjam wrote:It’s entirely possible that Trump was never more than a convenient patsy for Russian oligarchs and mobsters, with his casinos and condos providing easy pass-throughs for their illicit riches. At the very least, with his constant need for new infusions of cash and his well-documented troubles with creditors, Trump made an easy “mark” for anyone looking to launder money. But whatever his knowledge about the source of his wealth, the public record makes clear that Trump built his business empire in no small part with a lot of dirty money from a lot of dirty Russians—including the dirtiest and most feared of them all.
You're a landlord yourself. Do you think that all your tenants are pure as the wind-driven snow? Do any of them do drugs? Do they gamble? Do they go to strip clubs or frequent prostitutes? The fact is, that doesn't matter. If you are a co-owner of someone who does, you may have some business trouble. If you have a tenant or a creditor who does, it's not your problem. It's not Trump's problem either. If they want to buy or rent properties in Trump casinos or high rises, that's their right. If they are doing it in furtherance of a conspiracy, that's their liability, not Trump's. As a landlord, you should know this. So why are you trolling about all this clap trap?
ArtAllm wrote:It seems that the so-called "Russiagate" quietly died, the deadly MSM-grip on the brains of the Normies becomes less effective.
Yeah. It's what I suspected: they are just recovering their campaign contributions at taxpayer expense. There is nothing these shit heads wouldn't do.
Stormsmith wrote:Perhaps. Perhaps not. For all you know, there may be stuff there in such volumes that Mueller requires more help. Perhaps he's looking for ways to prosecute that are unpardonable
No such thing, unless it's the president himself.
Zagadka wrote:How is the whole "lock her up" thing going, anyway?
She's getting a pass from the Justice Department, even though it is clear she broke the law. That's why we don't defend the Republicans anymore. They're no good either.
jimjam wrote:My personal method, especially in politics, is to follow the money.
Except if it involves Democrats, and more succinctly the Clintons. There are a lot of ties to the Clintons and Russia that have a lot more troubling characteristics than anything involving Trump. Why aren't you interested in that? If Russia is so bad, why should we sell them uranium mines so they can make nuclear weapons and wipe us off the face of the Earth? Policy-wise, that doesn't seem particularly sound; yet, the Clinton Foundation got a windfall in donations from Russia and Bill Clinton gave a speech for $500k dollars around that time.
Just so you know jimjam: I like you. I will give you a speech for just $400k.
I'm sorry, but I don't have any uranium or plutonium to sell you.
"We have to send a clear message. Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay."
-- Hillary Clinton