Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Mumha

@davidaxelrod

Memo to Gen. Kelly:
Stormy Daniels reports that the @POTUS became more compliant after been spanked.
Desperate times demand desperate measures.

3:55 AM - Mar 26, 2018

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

This seems to have passed by, although I am pretty sure Demfad mentioned it, but recently Guccifer 2.0 (the source of the hacks of the DNC servers) was not only shown not to be some random Romanian, but through a lapse in their usage of a VPN, has been traced to a specific Russian intelligence officer.

So what we have is a direct link to the Russian security services hacking into he DNC and then sending that information to the likes of Wikileaks.

Surely, from a US POV, this is far more serious that the recent attempted murder in the UK?

I made some posts on this about 4 or 5 days ago. Outside of demfad, not much made of it. It ties Russia to Roger Stone and Russia to wikileaks. It's quite big in my opinion.


Billy86 also posted about it on AH as well. What follows is quite entertaining - lots of ignoring, deflecting and Seth Rich shows up.

Really Interested

StringerBell wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me how his approval rating has gone up? Highest it's been in 11 months according to CNN. What are we to read in to this?

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar26

According to this it is at 46% defo not best in last 11 months can you link to the claim?

Kermit.de.frog

I take it we are talking about this Michael Cohen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Kb7IDmFF4

The clown car just keeps giving.

StringerBell

Mumha wrote: »

It depends on the poll you're looking at. Have a look at www.fivethirtyeight.com/ and you'll see the various polling companies and the biases they have for Dem or Rep or non-partisan.

I've no idea which they used literally just heard it on CNN and found it unusual. The likes of Rasmussen I would expect, I wouldn't have expected CNN to use that one though

StringerBell

Really Interested wrote: »

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar26

According to this it is at 46% defo not best in last 11 months can you link to the claim?

No, as I said it was on a news report last night. Just before Anderson Cooper I think. That world sport was on, it was part of a "coming up" just before an ad break

Leroy42

I wonder how the recent omnibus tax bill will be taken by his supporters. Even Fox news have blasted it, and Trump.

That 1.6bn that is being talked about for the wall, according to Laura Ingraham, is specifically excluded from being able to be spent on a wall. Areas like Planned Parenthood have maintained $500m. I watched some Fox News coverage of the bill and it was pretty scathing.

Tucker Carlson laid most of the blame on the GOP, (but it begs the question as to if the GOP are not standing up for the right then who is?, although he didn't answer that).

Overall it would appear that the general consensus is that Trump either got totally played (and is thus ineffective) or he purposefully went against nearly all the promises he had made to his voters.

The fact that he tweeted soon after that he was going ahead with banning bump stocks is yet another signal that his strongest supporters are getting to see that the man they believed in is not the man in the WH.

everlast75

I don't think it was mentioned here before but yet another **** up by Cohen relates to the payment to SD prior to the election.

He claimed that he paid it - nothing to do with Trump and he would do that for any of his high profile clients.

That BS aside, It has been opined that this payment was for the benefit of the campaign, it will be considered a contribution to the campaign.

The trouble is that the maximum payment contribution towards a campaign is $3500.

The only way out of it is for Trump to pay him back... which will of course mean that Trump admits it happened.

I'm not saying Avenatti is the best lawyer of all time, but there is nothing less than a gulf in quality between him and Cohen.

Leroy42

everlast75 wrote: »

I don't think it was mentioned here before but yet another **** up by Cohen relates to the payment to SD prior to the election.

He claimed that he paid it - nothing to do with Trump and he would do that for any of his high profile clients.

That BS aside, It has been opined that this payment was for the benefit of the campaign, it will be considered a contribution to the campaign.

The trouble is that the maximum payment contribution towards a campaign is $3500.

The only way out of it is for Trump to pay him back... which will of course mean that Trump admits it happened.

I'm not saying Avenatti is the best lawyer of all time, but there is nothing less than a gulf in quality between him and Cohen.

Couple of issues I have with that.

1st, not sure that it would be necessarily considered a contribution. Surely one would have to show that it was used as part of the campaign.

2nd, even it is was a campaign contribution, since it never reached the Trump campaign, then how can Trump be held accountable for it?

Trump admitting that it happened doesn't in itself mean anything. All it means, without further evidence, is that Trump acknowledges that Cohen made a payment and, since it outside of campaign laws, he is paying it back.

VinLieger

Really Interested wrote: »

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar26

According to this it is at 46% defo not best in last 11 months can you link to the claim?

Rasmussen is traditionally far more weighted in favour of republican's than any other poll, for this reason you can't take any one poll as the truth, you need an aggregate which is why its better to look at the Five Thirty Eight model

Water John

The notion of my solicitor paying off any bill for me, is ludicrous, and he is related , to me. Just doesn't happen. Mueller will, follow the money.

aloyisious

It might be seen as a benefit-in-kind type of payment. Keeping SD quiet so as not to turn off voters, would have been greatly beneficial - no mention of scandal - to Don's election chances. Plus if Don, as has been stated, never repaid his lawyer the money said to have come from the lawyer's personal resources, it can be seen to be more than a temporary helping hand to Don to solve an inconvenient happening in Don's personal life.

Leroy42

True, but one would have to then prove that Trump actually knew about it, something he is currently denying.

The story, by Cohen, seems to be that he (Cohen) was tipped off that Daniels was about to go public and, fearing for the terrible trauma such lies would cause his friend, took the selfless act of dealing with it off his own bat. He didn't trouble Trump with it, who was busy at the time, and simply paid over the money.

Peregrinus

Nobody believes that Cohen didn't expect to be reimbursed for his modest outlay.

That doesn't mean that Trump knew about it, though. Cohen could well have had the kind of relationship with Trump by which he knows he can lay out money to head off trouble without getting prior clearance, and it will all get sorted out in time.

That wouldn't mean, though, that it wouldn't have been treated as a campaign contribution. There could be many payments that Trump is ignorant of that are campaign contributions - you don't expect the candidate to be doing the campaign bookkeeping, do you?

More significantly, the payment wasn't routed through the campaign accounts but that, too, doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't a campaign contribution. US campaign financing laws are widely drawn, and if Cohen laid out money with a view to influencing the outcome of the election in Trump's favour (by supressing a potentially embarrassing news story) then that may come within the campaign financing laws. Cohen's claim is that his payment had nothing at all to do with the election that was due about six weeks later, such a thought never crossed his mind, he did it because "I truly care about him and the family" and he would have done it at any time, election or no election.

He also claims that paying out money like this for high-profile clients, with no expectation of return, is "what attorneys do for their high-profile clients". (He's lying, of course.)

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

It might be seen as a benefit-in-kind type of payment. Keeping SD quiet so as not to turn off voters, would have been greatly beneficial - no mention of scandal - to Don's election chances. Plus if Don, as has been stated, never repaid his lawyer the money said to have come from the lawyer's personal resources, it can be seen to be more than a temporary helping hand to Don to solve an inconvenient happening in Don's personal life.

What he said! (I was in a dentist chair - couldn't reply )

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nobody believes that Cohen didn't expect to be reimbursed for his modest outlay.

That doesn't mean that Trump knew about it, though. Cohen could well have had the kind of relationship with Trump by which he knows he can lay out money to head off trouble without getting prior clearance, and it will all get sorted out in time.

That wouldn't mean, though, that it wouldn't have been treated as a campaign contribution. There could be many payments that Trump is ignorant of that are campaign contributions - you don't expect the candidate to be doing the campaign bookkeeping, do you?

More significantly, the payment wasn't routed through the campaign accounts but that, too, doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't a campaign contribution. US campaign financing laws are widely drawn, and if Cohen laid out money with a view to influencing the outcome of the election in Trump's favour (by supressing a potentially embarrassing news story) then that may come within the campaign financing laws. Cohen's claim is that his payment had nothing at all to do with the election that was due about six weeks later, such a thought never crossed his mind, he did it because "I truly care about him and the family" and he would have done it at any time, election or no election.

He also claims that paying out money like this for high-profile clients, with no expectation of return, is "what attorneys do for their high-profile clients". (He's lying, of course.)

Exactly.

Apparently, Edwards in 2011 made a payment to a woman who had a kid for him and he was charged with the very crime Cohen is suspected of. And according to one expert, this is a much stronger case because of the proximity of the payment to the campaign

AbusesToilets

Isn't there some suspicious payments to Trump hotel around the time of Cohen's payment that just happen to be of equal value?

Gbear

Mumha wrote: »

Mueller has already indicted 22 people.

This alone dismisses the argument that there is anything unjustified about the investigation.

Whatever the original aims of it, it has found clear and proven examples of wrongdoing in, or adjacent to, the Trump campaign, and has justified its existence already.

However, there is no level of naivety that could excuse the assumption that it can therefore be closed down because there's nothing else to be found.

Rather, it would require spectacular levels of intellectual dishonesty if not being an outright liar.

robinph

Don't forget that Trump Jr will be added to the list as well as he's already admitted to being guilty and provided the evidence to prove it, but was too stupid to realise what he was doing. Can just leave him waiting for the moment though and see if he does anything else stupid.

Really Interested

VinLieger wrote: »

Rasmussen is traditionally far more weighted in favour of republican's than any other poll, for this reason you can't take any one poll as the truth, you need an aggregate which is why its better to look at the Five Thirty Eight model

The reason I posted that is that historically in relation to Trump has been the highest numbers. 46 is not his highest numbers as recently he was at 50 with them. The OP had said that CNN reporting was Trump numbers at highest levels in months none of the polls seem to say that.

Christy42

Really Interested wrote: »

The reason I posted that is that historically in relation to Trump has been the highest numbers. 46 is not his highest numbers as recently he was at 50 with them. The OP had said that CNN reporting was Trump numbers at highest levels in months none of the polls seem to say that.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/politics/cnn-poll-trump-approval-rating-rises/index.html

It is just CNN's own polling. If it marks a trend or other pollsters start seeing it too it could be something. Otherwise not a massive story. CNN going with it as it is their own poll.

Mumha

StringerBell wrote: »

I've no idea which they used literally just heard it on CNN and found it unusual. The likes of Rasmussen I would expect, I wouldn't have expected CNN to use that one though

Have a look at this page, where 538 weighs the bias of each pollster.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/?ex_cid=irpromo

Mumha

aloyisious wrote: »

It might be seen as a benefit-in-kind type of payment. Keeping SD quiet so as not to turn off voters, would have been greatly beneficial - no mention of scandal - to Don's election chances. Plus if Don, as has been stated, never repaid his lawyer the money said to have come from the lawyer's personal resources, it can be seen to be more than a temporary helping hand to Don to solve an inconvenient happening in Don's personal life.

The timing was crucial too, in the aftermath of the Pussygate tape, they panicked and paid off Stormy and McDougal to hush it up.

Mumha

Gbear wrote: »

This alone dismisses the argument that there is anything unjustified about the investigation.

Whatever the original aims of it, it has found clear and proven examples of wrongdoing in, or adjacent to, the Trump campaign, and has justified its existence already.

However, there is no level of naivety that could excuse the assumption that it can therefore be closed down because there's nothing else to be found.

Rather, it would require spectacular levels of intellectual dishonesty if not being an outright liar.

And they're using the argument that Mueller has nothing on Trump, at this time, blithely ignoring the structure of the investigation that, as the end of the line, evidence implicating Trump will come out at the end of the investigation.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Plus if Don, as has been stated, never repaid his lawyer the money said to have come from the lawyer's personal resources.

Do we know if Cohen is the kind of guy who would this kind of cash lying round, or is the suspicion that Trump recompensed him through some back channel?

Mumha

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do we know if Cohen is the kind of guy who would this kind of cash lying round, or is the suspicion that Trump recompensed him through some back channel?

Ah stop Cohen said he got a loan on his house to pay her off.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/michael-cohen-says-he-borrowed-against-home-to-pay-stormy-daniels.html

Anyway, this was a long way of getting to the point, which is that ABC News, in the course of trying to follow the money, was just told by Cohen that he paid Daniels her $130,000 personally by borrowing against the equity he holds in his home, which is funny:

When asked where the $130,000 sent to Daniels’ attorney came from, Cohen told ABC News “the funds were taken from my home equity line and transferred internally to my LLC account in the same bank.”

That’s dedication! The question remains, though: Who paid him back? It seems like he must have gotten reimbursed, and he’s said he wasn’t paid back by the Trump Organization or the Trump campaign, but that’s all he’s said about the subject. Will we ever find out the whole story? Maybe … maybe not! Have a good weekend!

amandstu

Mumha wrote: »

Ah stop Cohen said he got a loan on his house to pay her off.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/michael-cohen-says-he-borrowed-against-home-to-pay-stormy-daniels.html

Is that kind of supposed behaviour enough to get a lawyer disbarred?

Paying off potential witnesses without checking with one's client even if it is presented as being in their interest?

I mean ,if genuine it still brings suspicion on the client as being responsible.

How common an action is this?. I have never heard of it before. Would it be so unusual as not to be covered in any sollicitors' code of conduct?

Maybe it was done with a nod and a wink "do whatever you have to to get her off my back".

Was that around the time Trump was encouraging violent ejections in his rallies?

everlast75

Mumha wrote: »

Ah stop Cohen said he got a loan on his house to pay her off.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/michael-cohen-says-he-borrowed-against-home-to-pay-stormy-daniels.html

https://www.spin.com/2018/03/michael-cohen-complained-stormy-daniels-reimbursement/

A story running earlier this month says that Cohen wasn't paid back.

PS - how irritating is it for Cohen to reply to a valid question sent to him, to send a reply with two words - "fake news". Ooh, how ****ing clever and witty!

PPS - whenever I read "fake news" - I read it instead to mean "bad news" for Trump.

Loafing Oaf

Who paid him back? It seems like he must have gotten reimbursed

But that's not hard evidence, and if such doesn't emerge, it seems the story has no legal legs. Cohen certainly setting a high bar for other lawyers in terms of serving his client though.:p

Mumha

Loafing Oaf wrote:

But that's not hard evidence, and if such doesn't emerge, it seems the story has no legal legs. Cohen certainly setting a high bar for other lawyers in terms of serving his client though.

Stormy Daniels's friend says adult-film actress kept dress from night with Trump
Source: The Hill

Alana Evans, a friend of Stormy Daniels, said the adult-film actress held on to the dress she wore the day of her alleged affair with President Trump.

Evans said she was unaware of any text messages or pictures that could fit on a disc when asked by CNN’s Jim Sciutto about evidence that Daniels’s lawyer hinted about in recent days.

“All I know is that Stormy still has the dress that she wore from that night,” Evans said.

“Maybe a keepsake, maybe it’s because it’s actual proof,” Evans added when asked why Daniels might have kept the dress. “I can only speculate the things that may be on that dress, especially if it’s never been washed.”

-snip-

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/380371-stormy-daniels-friend-daniels-kept-the-dress-from-that-night

derb12

Look into the payment of $129,999.72 made in mid-late oct 2016 to 4 trump hotels from the campaign. You can check it out on the FEC website yourself. Highly suspicious.
If Cohen made the payment to Stormy himself unbeknownst to trump or his campaign it'd still be a campaign finance violation (above the limit, to the benefit of the campaign and not declared) leaving Cohen in big trouble.
If payment was somehow routed/laundered through the trump organisation and trump campaign as the $129999.72 amount paid to these hotels out of the blue would indicate then we are talking about a major sh1tst0rm of epic proportions.

This was posted by another boardsie a few pages back
https://mobile.twitter.com/whstancil/status/972877866147840001