Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
And Vice President Pence hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
Trump accidentally? confirmed in an angry tweetstorm that he is under investigation for obstruction of justice because of how he fired Comey.
Finally, Richard Burt, a former American ambassador to Germany who lobbies for Russian interests told The Guardian on Thursday that he attended two dinners hosted by Sessions.
Have the lawyers in charge of investigating the Russian connection hired lawyers to protect themselves from the Russian investigation? Just wondering...
Anyone has to admit that there is a hell of alot of people lawyering up for something that supposedly doesn't have a there there.
Yeah, eventually they'll have to start hiring Russian lawyers...
Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
And Vice President Pence hired a lawyer to protect himself from the Russia investigation.
Trump accidentally? confirmed in an angry tweetstorm that he is under investigation for obstruction of justice because of how he fired Comey.
Finally, Richard Burt, a former American ambassador to Germany who lobbies for Russian interests told The Guardian on Thursday that he attended two dinners hosted by Sessions.
Have the lawyers in charge of investigating the Russian connection hired lawyers to protect themselves from the Russian investigation? Just wondering...
Anyone has to admit that there is a hell of alot of people lawyering up for something that supposedly doesn't have a there there.
Yeah, eventually they'll have to start hiring Russian lawyers...
Well, some of these lawyer's firms have pretty concrete ties to Russian interests, it's just so far down the list on things to discuss about this story that it never makes the cut.
Also, people are ignoring something that is fairly obvious. Does anyone think that Donald Trump hasn't been engaged in ANY illegal business practices the last 20 years or so that simply haven't fallen under scrutiny til now?? More than anything, I simply believe Trump and the crowd around him will never survive a serious investigation in to their financial dealings. Whitewater started as a look into a fairly benign land deal and ended up with a perjury trap about a BJ. Point being, it doesn't much matter where this starts, it matters where it ends.
Having had to deal with an 'occasional' real estate agent and other contractors in a professional capacity that were a little shady(not illegal, just borderline, for the most part) regarding the law, Trump's business dealings at face value look like a real 'wheeler n dealer' in action. Get the whole country of news folks and investigators lookin into that and I'd bet at LEAST one purdy lil 'skeleton' would turn up.
@Fardragon I wouldn't say most. Of the Trump supporters I know, NONE act like that, including some in real estate and contracting, Trump's 'bread n butter'. I have not even heard any of the local 'pro-Trump' talk show folks intimating that line of thought.
I hope Trump realizes soon that he needs to take the wild conspiracy mongering of the left and flip the script. He was so good at this during the race. All the facts are on his side to do so. None of the claims about Trump Russian collusion or what have you have been verified and never will be. Meanwhile, there's a laundry list of proven acts of malfeasance against our democracy by the left during the election, we have Lorretta Lynch the Attorney General trying to force Comey into lying to protect Clinton, we have have the DNC trying to prevent the FBI from looking at their "hacked" servers, crucial evidence for their claims.
If I were him, i'd be tweeting this stuff out daily. Ordering investigations daily. The difference being, they'd be on the basis of things we actually know to be true and could benefit society, not showpieces for the media to go full in on the agitprop.
He needs to learn the swamp is full of only enemies and not allies. Not the Never Trump GOP'ers who hate his moderately liberal positions on welfare or that he won't allow them cheap illegal labor or free trade, not anyone with the DNC which makes the mafia look like law abiding citizens by comparison.
In other news, Trump called the health care bill mean and told them to be more generous. I've always liked Trump on policy and I hope he leaves a lasting mark on the GOP.
I believe Trump will leave a lasting mark on the GOP, the second republican President to resign from office in disgrace due to corruption and scandal.
Lynch asking Comey to soften the language of the investigation, which he refused to do and she did nothing about when he did, is nothing. Firing the head of the FBI who is investigating your campaign's ties to a hostile foreign power that helped get you elected in order to relieve great pressure is a major scandal.
The DNC was well within their rights to not allow the FBI into their server. There are plenty of other angles to attack the Russia investigation. They can get the Trump people to admit what they've done wrong and get transcripts of all the illegal meetings, bribes and kickbacks they received. Actual state voting infrastructure was hacked too, who cares about DNC servers. Don't worry the truth is coming out.
@WarChiefZeke I just don't know if he CAN flip it now, with the big ego boost the Pres. Office gave em. He just does not seem to be able to resist. That and as you alluded to, the so called allies are only allies if it suits their personal 'getting voted back into office' agendas. On the health care GOP 'mean' bill, it could of course just be a way Trump is thinkin he can get a few dems on board as well. In that piece you referenced a dem was saying something to the effect of;See, even the pres thinks it mean, not just us'.
I don't think the GOP like Trump to any degree and will only cooperate when absolutely neccesary to not make their constituents mad. That being said I also don't like the GOP much so their opinions don't matter much to me. Besides the fact that doesn't believe in dismantling social safety nets or ending gay marriage, he also beat out everyone in their entire party with virtually zero experience. They're probably still salty about that.
I don't think the GOP like Trump to any degree and will only cooperate when absolutely neccesary to not make their constituents mad. That being said I also don't like the GOP much so their opinions don't matter much to me. Besides the fact that doesn't believe in dismantling social safety nets or ending gay marriage, he also beat out everyone in their entire party with virtually zero experience. They're probably still salty about that.
#1, he ran as the Republican nominee for President. #2, Trump doesn't have any policy, and the only people who have any control over what is in the health-care bill are Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. He will sign anything they put in front of him. #3, the House bill he had a party with the GOP members in the Rose Garden when it passed ALREADY would dismantle the social safety net, and that is just step one of a multi-part plan the GOP has been salivating over for about 50 years. The entire purpose of the party is to dismantle the New Deal to fund tax cuts. That's pretty much the crux of everything. All the social issues are simply glue to hold a coalition together to accomplish that goal.
This Grenfell Tower situation in the UK is a stark, hideous example of what happens when you let "burdensome regulations" expire, be repealed, or not be enforced. Yeah, some people are gonna make alot more money on the front end, there might even be some jobs in it. And then when the shit hits the fan, people die in a high-rise inferno. Or a whole city has their water poisoned (see Flint, MI). Or Oklahoma starts having an earthquake epidemic (fracking). Regulations aren't put in place by experts to keep down the working man and make it harder for people to do business. They are there so, one day, people don't die because of negligence and greed.
This Grenfell Tower situation in the UK is a stark, hideous example of what happens when you let "burdensome regulations" expire, be repealed, or not be enforced. Yeah, some people are gonna make alot more money on the front end, there might even be some jobs in it. And then when the shit hits the fan, people die in a high-rise inferno. Or a whole city has their water poisoned (see Flint, MI). Or Oklahoma starts having an earthquake epidemic (fracking). Regulations aren't put in place by experts to keep down the working man and make it harder for people to do business. They are there so, one day, people don't die because of negligence and greed.
In general yes, but overly restrictive regulations prevent businesses from being able to function. Its about finding the right balance.
Earlier in the thread, I asked if anyone had any examples of a government regulation that restricted business without a good reason. Can somebody provide one?
I can't really think of any major regulations in the United States that impose an undue burden on corporations' ability to function. It's not like Russia, where starting any business of any kind requires you to first get a license that can take years to obtain. That's the kind of regulation that slows down enterprise for no good reason.
Mostly our regulations just prevent corporations from poisoning people and scamming people. No, you can't dump your industrial waste that close to the city's water supply; no, you can't flat-out lie to your customers about your products and services (though these things still happen, since regulations aren't always enforced). Sometimes honesty and a clean environment are a little less profitable for a company than fraud and pollution, but it's not like you can't do business without the latter.
There are plenty of companies that make lots of money without hurting people. We should expect all companies to be able to live up to that standard.
I know a couple of EPA guidelines that are more ridiculous and money wasting than particularly harmful. My comment is more of a warning against a blanket belief that regulations are automatically good, than a specific criticism.
Earlier in the thread, I asked if anyone had any examples of a government regulation that restricted business without a good reason. Can somebody provide one?
I can't really think of any major regulations in the United States that impose an undue burden on corporations' ability to function. It's not like Russia, where starting any business of any kind requires you to first get a license that can take years to obtain. That's the kind of regulation that slows down enterprise for no good reason.
Mostly our regulations just prevent corporations from poisoning people and scamming people. No, you can't dump your industrial waste that close to the city's water supply; no, you can't flat-out lie to your customers about your products and services (though these things still happen, since regulations aren't always enforced). Sometimes honesty and a clean environment are a little less profitable for a company than fraud and pollution, but it's not like you can't do business without the latter.
There are plenty of companies that make lots of money without hurting people. We should expect all companies to be able to live up to that standard.
I work at a company that makes ingredients that go into food (without getting into details). There are many, many things we have to do throughout the day to make sure this isn't contaminated. Hourly metal detector checks, color-coded cleaning supplies for certain types of equipment, at least bi-weekly massive cleaning of equipment. Does this, on the surface, cost the company alot of money?? I mean, yeah, I'm sure we could put out alot more product in these hours that are being spent doing all this stuff that is the result of regulations. But is it worth it if even ONE life is saved?? Absolutely.
Earlier in the thread, I asked if anyone had any examples of a government regulation that restricted business without a good reason. Can somebody provide one?
Earlier in the thread, I asked if anyone had any examples of a government regulation that restricted business without a good reason. Can somebody provide one?
I don't think 90% of these are what most rational people would call pertinent regulations, and most of them aren't regulations at all, but simply insane laws, most of which probably haven't been enforced for decades, if ever. For instance, I'm sure the Wisconsin law that you can serve apple pie without a slice of cheese has never ended up with a cafe being fined for doing so. To be perfectly honest, I would question to actual validity and existence of at least 30-40% of the one's that I read over the course of 2 or 3 minutes.
Trump's buddy buddy with authoritarian regimes in Saudia, Russia, and the Philippines (to name a few). These places do some bad stuff such as the millions killed in the Ukraine, Yemen and in the Philippines brutal drug massacres.
But Trump, hypocrite as always, used human rights as the main excuse why he's going backwards with Cuban relations. Obviously that's not a real concern of his based on those countries and leaders he likes.
So what's his real concerns? Probably a combination of hating Obama, wanting to help his hotel business by squeezing out other companies, and perhaps wanting to turn back the clock in search of a past that is obsolete.
Cuba threw it back in his face though.
"We have deep concerns by the respect and the guaranties of the human rights in that country (the USA), where there is a large number of cases of murder, brutality and police abuse, particularly against the African Americans; the right to live is violated as a result of deaths by firearms," the statement read by the Cuban government.
It went on to list a litany of concerns: racial discrimination, salary inequality between genders, the marginalization of immigrants and refugees from Islamic and other countries, Trump's proposed wall on the southern border, his decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord, the imprisonment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, the killing of US and foreign citizens in drone attacks, the preface for and conduct of the wars in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, and estimates that the Republican health care bill would cause 23 million people to lose medical insurance.
Here is one from that site with the actual law quoted. It basically says that a business owner cannot own more than 4 arcade machines unless they obtain a licence from the city, which is basically a tax on businesses in an attempt to limit this type of entertainment.
This Grenfell Tower situation in the UK is a stark, hideous example of what happens when you let "burdensome regulations" expire, be repealed, or not be enforced. Yeah, some people are gonna make alot more money on the front end, there might even be some jobs in it. And then when the shit hits the fan, people die in a high-rise inferno. Or a whole city has their water poisoned (see Flint, MI). Or Oklahoma starts having an earthquake epidemic (fracking). Regulations aren't put in place by experts to keep down the working man and make it harder for people to do business. They are there so, one day, people don't die because of negligence and greed.
I have been following that as much as possible with the info we can get. As someone with a general contracting background, what they were telling people to do, STAY in their apts, is just place gross negligence it would seem to me. Yeah, maybe the rooms were SUPPOSEDLY reputed to withstand fire for a little longer, that is just crazy with a high rise. I mean everything IN the rooms just acts like fuel, and the beams, walls, insulation cannot take that kind of heat. Plus, if regs. as you mentioned were getting lax, nd that tends to happen more with some BIG builders and multifamily stuff SOMEBODY needs their arse held to to fire. Friggin disaster
I would not be surprised even if somebody lit it up just to watch it burn. Had a Jr. fireman do that to several houses where I used to build, finally got caught after lighting one of mine up. He then got 'let off' and ended up murdering his grandmother a few months after.
"We have deep concerns by the respect and the guaranties of the human rights in that country (the USA), where there is a large number of cases of murder, brutality and police abuse, particularly against the African Americans; the right to live is violated as a result of deaths by firearms," the statement read by the Cuban government.
It went on to list a litany of concerns: racial discrimination, salary inequality between genders, the marginalization of immigrants and refugees from Islamic and other countries, Trump's proposed wall on the southern border, his decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord, the imprisonment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, the killing of US and foreign citizens in drone attacks, the preface for and conduct of the wars in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, and estimates that the Republican health care bill would cause 23 million people to lose medical insurance.
I've little sympathy for the Trump administration's change on Cuba (it's not going to accomplish anything), but honestly, this statement from Cuba is probably just Cuba trying to lash out at a slight. It's common for leaders of non-democratic and pseudo-democratic countries to defend themselves by saying "Oh yeah? Well America is bad, so stop talking about us."
Every year, the U.S. State Department releases a human rights report on each country in the world, detailing its human rights situation and whether it has improved at all that year. And every year, China publishes a counter-report on America's human rights situation, throwing mud right back.
China does not, of course, publish a human rights report on any other countries besides America, because its government does not care about human rights to begin with. It just wishes the U.S. would stop talking about human rights in China.
It's common for leaders of non-democratic and pseudo-democratic countries to defend themselves by saying "Oh yeah? Well America is bad, so stop talking about us."
That sounds a whole lot like "Russia used the Trump campaign, and since election he's been doing awful things to schools and healthcare, and he's totally corrupt but Hillarys emails! " argument that we hear so much.
I'm just saying with him running the show, we've totally ceded any illusion of the moral high ground. Grab em by the kitty! In the past sure it's been clear we haven't been able to stand up to American ideals but nothing as completely as this.
Macron has won an overwhelming majority in the French Parliament. Whatever right-ward shift was going on in Europe recently seems to have completley reversed course, in seemingly no time at all. In Britain, in the wake of the election and this high-rise fire, it would be a miracle if Theresa May can hold onto her very shaky grasp on power for more than a few months. Her poll numbers are, unbelievably, in sub-Trump territory at the moment.
She is generally referred to as the Maybot these days...Following the election her role is something akin to a lightning rod or a totem which will absorb all the toxicity of Brexit & austerity before being ritually consumed by her fellow party members. Her inability to connect with members of the public after the recent tragedy in London was pretty damning.
So....the last two nights, someone has stormed the stage at the "Julius Caesar" play in NY. And there have also been death threats....to other theater companies that aren't even doing the play. So, in summation: the free speech absolutists are trying to shut down a play, and people are apparently so upset about the so-called violent rhetoric of 400 year old story that they are willing to threaten to kill people over it.
And apparently, just for good measure, a white man in Britain targeted Muslims coming out of prayer with a van within the last few hours. What's the over/under on whether he gets called a terrorist or not??
We've seen a couple old rules still being proved true these past few days.
If you are rich, a celebrity, or a police officer then you are above the law. And white people who commit hate crimes are not called terrorists. New story same as the old story.
The tendency to only call islamist incidents 'terrorism' I think is stronger in the US than Europe. Here's an extract from this morning's BBC story: "A man has died and eight people have been injured after a van ploughed into pedestrians near a north London mosque. The van mounted the pavement and struck a group of people just after midnight near Finsbury Park Mosque in Seven Sisters Road. A 48-year-old man has been arrested. Prime Minister Theresa May said police were treating it "as a potential terrorist attack". The Muslim Council of Britain said a van intentionally ran over worshippers. An eyewitness called Abdul told the BBC he saw a man come out the van "and then he was shouting 'where are all the Muslims? I wanna kill all Muslims.' Literally he said that". Counter terrorism officers are at the scene, the Metropolitan Police said."
Macron has won an overwhelming majority in the French Parliament. Whatever right-ward shift was going on in Europe recently seems to have completley reversed course, in seemingly no time at all. In Britain, in the wake of the election and this high-rise fire, it would be a miracle if Theresa May can hold onto her very shaky grasp on power for more than a few months. Her poll numbers are, unbelievably, in sub-Trump territory at the moment.
I don't think there is any overall shift to the left or to the right or to the centre. What we are seeing is a rejection of traditional politicians of any shade.
Macron being a "centrist" is irrelevant to his election. The key to his success was rejecting the traditional parties of government. (standing up to Trump didn't do his party any harm in the polls either)
She is generally referred to as the Maybot these days...Following the election her role is something akin to a lightning rod or a totem which will absorb all the toxicity of Brexit & austerity before being ritually consumed by her fellow party members. Her inability to connect with members of the public after the recent tragedy in London was pretty damning.
In a way I feel a little sorry for her. I too would struggle to show the level of emotional intelligence needed to lead at this time.
However, being aware of those weaknesses in my own character, I would never think I could be Prime Minister.
The tendency to only call islamist incidents 'terrorism' I think is stronger in the US than Europe.
It might be, but it sure is prevalent in Europe too. This has recently started some angry discussions here in Sweden after a bunch of nazis were arrested for three bombings in Gothenburg. Last I heard they were not arrested for, and are not prosecuted for, terrorism, but for devastation endangering the public.
Some argue that these bombings aren't "terrorism" the way it's legally defined in the EU. And I'm no legal expert, so I won't say they are wrong. Even so, I think it's a big problem that nazis are hurting and killing people here and they are never called terrorists. It can really screw up the statistics on terrorism and create a false image that neo-nazism isn't a threat.
Comments
Also, people are ignoring something that is fairly obvious. Does anyone think that Donald Trump hasn't been engaged in ANY illegal business practices the last 20 years or so that simply haven't fallen under scrutiny til now?? More than anything, I simply believe Trump and the crowd around him will never survive a serious investigation in to their financial dealings. Whitewater started as a look into a fairly benign land deal and ended up with a perjury trap about a BJ. Point being, it doesn't much matter where this starts, it matters where it ends.
@Fardragon
If I were him, i'd be tweeting this stuff out daily. Ordering investigations daily. The difference being, they'd be on the basis of things we actually know to be true and could benefit society, not showpieces for the media to go full in on the agitprop.
He needs to learn the swamp is full of only enemies and not allies. Not the Never Trump GOP'ers who hate his moderately liberal positions on welfare or that he won't allow them cheap illegal labor or free trade, not anyone with the DNC which makes the mafia look like law abiding citizens by comparison.
In other news, Trump called the health care bill mean and told them to be more generous. I've always liked Trump on policy and I hope he leaves a lasting mark on the GOP.
http://www.businessinsider.com/house-gop-trump-ahca-mean-health-care-2017-6
Lynch asking Comey to soften the language of the investigation, which he refused to do and she did nothing about when he did, is nothing. Firing the head of the FBI who is investigating your campaign's ties to a hostile foreign power that helped get you elected in order to relieve great pressure is a major scandal.
The DNC was well within their rights to not allow the FBI into their server. There are plenty of other angles to attack the Russia investigation. They can get the Trump people to admit what they've done wrong and get transcripts of all the illegal meetings, bribes and kickbacks they received. Actual state voting infrastructure was hacked too, who cares about DNC servers. Don't worry the truth is coming out.
On the health care GOP 'mean' bill, it could of course just be a way Trump is thinkin he can get a few dems on board as well. In that piece you referenced a dem was saying something to the effect of;See, even the pres thinks it mean, not just us'.
I can't really think of any major regulations in the United States that impose an undue burden on corporations' ability to function. It's not like Russia, where starting any business of any kind requires you to first get a license that can take years to obtain. That's the kind of regulation that slows down enterprise for no good reason.
Mostly our regulations just prevent corporations from poisoning people and scamming people. No, you can't dump your industrial waste that close to the city's water supply; no, you can't flat-out lie to your customers about your products and services (though these things still happen, since regulations aren't always enforced). Sometimes honesty and a clean environment are a little less profitable for a company than fraud and pollution, but it's not like you can't do business without the latter.
There are plenty of companies that make lots of money without hurting people. We should expect all companies to be able to live up to that standard.
But Trump, hypocrite as always, used human rights as the main excuse why he's going backwards with Cuban relations. Obviously that's not a real concern of his based on those countries and leaders he likes.
So what's his real concerns? Probably a combination of hating Obama, wanting to help his hotel business by squeezing out other companies, and perhaps wanting to turn back the clock in search of a past that is obsolete.
Cuba threw it back in his face though.
"We have deep concerns by the respect and the guaranties of the human rights in that country (the USA), where there is a large number of cases of murder, brutality and police abuse, particularly against the African Americans; the right to live is violated as a result of deaths by firearms," the statement read by the Cuban government.
It went on to list a litany of concerns: racial discrimination, salary inequality between genders, the marginalization of immigrants and refugees from Islamic and other countries, Trump's proposed wall on the southern border, his decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord, the imprisonment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, the killing of US and foreign citizens in drone attacks, the preface for and conduct of the wars in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, and estimates that the Republican health care bill would cause 23 million people to lose medical insurance.
Here is one from that site with the actual law quoted. It basically says that a business owner cannot own more than 4 arcade machines unless they obtain a licence from the city, which is basically a tax on businesses in an attempt to limit this type of entertainment.
Plus, if regs. as you mentioned were getting lax, nd that tends to happen more with some BIG builders and multifamily stuff SOMEBODY needs their arse held to to fire.
Friggin disaster
I would not be surprised even if somebody lit it up just to watch it burn. Had a Jr. fireman do that to several houses where I used to build, finally got caught after lighting one of mine up. He then got 'let off' and ended up murdering his grandmother a few months after.
Every year, the U.S. State Department releases a human rights report on each country in the world, detailing its human rights situation and whether it has improved at all that year. And every year, China publishes a counter-report on America's human rights situation, throwing mud right back.
China does not, of course, publish a human rights report on any other countries besides America, because its government does not care about human rights to begin with. It just wishes the U.S. would stop talking about human rights in China.
I'm just saying with him running the show, we've totally ceded any illusion of the moral high ground. Grab em by the kitty! In the past sure it's been clear we haven't been able to stand up to American ideals but nothing as completely as this.
But seriously, I predict Zuckerberg will be a presidential candidate one day.
And apparently, just for good measure, a white man in Britain targeted Muslims coming out of prayer with a van within the last few hours. What's the over/under on whether he gets called a terrorist or not??
If you are rich, a celebrity, or a police officer then you are above the law. And white people who commit hate crimes are not called terrorists. New story same as the old story.
"A man has died and eight people have been injured after a van ploughed into pedestrians near a north London mosque.
The van mounted the pavement and struck a group of people just after midnight near Finsbury Park Mosque in Seven Sisters Road. A 48-year-old man has been arrested.
Prime Minister Theresa May said police were treating it "as a potential terrorist attack".
The Muslim Council of Britain said a van intentionally ran over worshippers.
An eyewitness called Abdul told the BBC he saw a man come out the van "and then he was shouting 'where are all the Muslims? I wanna kill all Muslims.' Literally he said that".
Counter terrorism officers are at the scene, the Metropolitan Police said."
Macron being a "centrist" is irrelevant to his election. The key to his success was rejecting the traditional parties of government. (standing up to Trump didn't do his party any harm in the polls either)
However, being aware of those weaknesses in my own character, I would never think I could be Prime Minister.
Some argue that these bombings aren't "terrorism" the way it's legally defined in the EU. And I'm no legal expert, so I won't say they are wrong. Even so, I think it's a big problem that nazis are hurting and killing people here and they are never called terrorists. It can really screw up the statistics on terrorism and create a false image that neo-nazism isn't a threat.