[hrothgar]

 rmnka447, on 2017-October-29, 21:30, said:

Most middle of the road and conservative are certainly aware that "Hillary didn't win" and President Trump did.

The problem is that progressives/liberals can't accept that reality and have spent a year trying to deny the result.

I don't see an concerted effort to deny that Trump won.
I do believe that there are efforts to remove Trump from office, but this is hardly the same thing.

From my own perspective, I expect that the the efforts to prove that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government are likely to end up as inconclusive.

1. I haven't seen anything public that suggests that this can be proven
2. I have heard rumors about intelligence intercepts from overseas partners, but its hard to tell whats what

However, I do expect that it will be determined that the Russian government has sufficient leverage over Trump that he should be removed from office. (I'm not talking about the pee tapes here, funny as this might be, but rather, that the Trump organization is a front for Russian money laundering. This combined with some large loans means that the Russians pretty much own Trump)

Sadly, I expect that Pence will be significantly worse that Trump on many fronts. Hopefully he's a bit more sane and won't feel the same need to launch a nuke)

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-October-29, 18:56, said:

Wasn't Hillary Clinton one of nine members of the panel that gave final approval to the deal?

The Secretary of State is one of 9 members of the Committee oon Foreign Investments for the United States.

This does not mean that she was personally involved in the review or the approval process nor that she made one of nthe nine votes.

"Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times that he represented the department on the committee. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” he told the Times, referring to the committee by its acronym."

[Zelandakh]

 ldrews, on 2017-October-29, 18:56, said:

Wasn't Hillary Clinton one of nine members of the panel that gave final approval to the deal?

OK, one last post on this before clearing the way for Mueller - some background to CFIUS from someone in a position to know. I will pick out the highlights as quotes with some commentary:

Quote

Based on what is currently in the public record, little, if anything about the allegation is plausible.

...which everyone knows of course but since the aim is to blow smoke over Mueller's investogation that is hardly relevant.

Quote

Typically the commercial agencies (the Treasury Department, which chairs the committee, joined by the Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative) will argue against most (and sometimes all) restrictions on the ability of parties to enter into contracts. They contend that such limitations make American companies less attractive to purchase and result in distortions of the market that fail to benefit American consumers. Usually, they are joined by the Department of State, which reaches the same conclusion from a different direction. State's concern is often that adverse action will disrupt foreign relations and might lead to reciprocal limitations being imposed by other nations.

In other words, the role of the DoS on the committee is primarily to protect foreign relations, whereas Defense and DHS are primarily charged with raising national security issues. In the case of uranium the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is also an important body that needs to approve the transaction. The specific case of Uranium One took place during the Russia "reset", so it would be natural to assume that the prevailing attitude amongst the DoS civil servants at the time would be favourable towards improving relations with Russia. It thus seems wholly in keeping with the process that this would be their line in inter-agency discussions without any need to refer the matter upwards to an under-secretary.

Quote

One final point—the CFIUS process has been around for a while. Most of the cases are relatively routine. Mitigation measures are often standard, with a little bit of crafting to meet a specific case. A regular meeting has career civil servants in attendance, not political appointees. Political staff is engaged (typically at the assistant secretary or undersecretary level) only in rare cases and secretarial engagement is even less common—except, of course, when the issue is going to be presented to the president for his actual decision.

...which is the real crux of the matter. The committee work is done at a junior level and has been for a very long time. Any suggestion that this reflects negatively on the Secretaries involved is wholly misplaced.

And here is an excerpt from the NRC approval statement (my emphasis added in bold):

Quote

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

And finally the summary:

Quote

What can we glean from all this?

It is unlikely that Secretary Clinton personally participated in the transaction. Her assistant secretary says she did not intervene, and given the nature of the transaction and the apparent lack of controversy, that is a plausible scenario. I can see no reason to doubt his account.

The structure of CFIUS is such that no one agency can control the outcome of the consideration. Here it appears that the entire committee and the NRC were all satisfied with the mitigation put in place. It is a very far stretch to lay this result at State's doorstep—the vigorous objection of any of the security-minded agencies would likely have derailed the transaction, but none, evidently was forthcoming. I have no doubt that State favored the sale—but that is likely the position it would take today under Secretary Rex Tillerson and was surely the position it would have taken under Secretaries Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and John Kerry. State has a strong institutional bias in favor of accommodating foreign investment in the United States. Here, it seems clear that the Pentagon and DHS did not object either.

The inherent bias of the process is to approve transactions, with mitigation if needed. Intervention and blocking are rare and require more than a single agency to be activated. Put another way, no single agency has a veto on the transaction—the transaction goes forward unless a substantial majority of CFIUS is motivated by grave concerns to block it. So the most accurate way to characterize this case is that State, along with all the other agencies, declined to recommend a presidential veto.

Uranium One's licenses are for mining and extraction, not for export. This makes the claim that we "gave away" 20% of America's uranium fairly hyperbolic. The expectation, in light of the NRC's assessment, would have been that the uranium mined would be marketed in America (with the profits going to Russia).

It is, however, true, that the mining rights to 20% of American uranium are now held by a Russian state agency. That is troubling (and had it been me, I would have tried to generate opposition to the sale). It isn't a "give away," but it is the case that Rusatom has de jure and de facto legal rights that can be exercised to limit production if it wishes to do so.

You will note that he reaches the same conclusion as me, that the main concern here is the ability to limit American uranium production and that this should probably have been subjected to higher scrutiny. it also seems clear that the main line of blame for this, if there is any blame to assign, would be with the civil servants in DoD, DHS and NRC. The truth of the matter is that the sale was not seen as controversial at the time and the civil servants treated it as a routine matter, which, given the lack of an export license, it largely is. All part of the political game of course but I think everyone here that is not on the extreme right should be able to see this for the smokescreen it is with the most minimal of research.

[y66]

From Donald Trump Wants to Raise Your Taxes by David Leonhardt:

Quote

The old formula for passing a big tax cut for the rich was simple: Package it with a modest tax cut for the middle class — and talk endlessly about the middle-class part.

President Trump and Congress are following the formula in some ways. Their plan would deliver an average tax cut of $700,000 to the nation’s 175,000 richest families. That’s enough for each to buy a new 50-foot yacht, annually. Meanwhile, Trump and other Republican leaders keep repeating “middle class,” “middle class,” “middle class.”

Yet there is also a major difference between the current plan and George W. Bush’s tax cut or Ronald Reagan’s. Trump’s plan would not actually cut taxes for many middle-class families. It would raise them.

[chart showing percent of taxpayers by income group whose taxes would rise in 2018 and in 2027]

About 17 percent of households earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would see their taxes rise immediately, according to the only rigorous analysis so far, by the Tax Policy Center. Among households earning between $150,000 and $250,000, the share is about 35 percent.

To understand the Trump tax increases, you should first acknowledge the most admirable feature of his plan. It doesn’t aspire to be merely a tax cut. It aspires to be tax reform — both cuts and increases. Some deductions shrink, while rates fall, in the name of simplifying the tax code.

But after this promising start, the plan commits its cardinal sin. It places the highest priority on huge tax cuts for the very wealthy. They get lower rates and get to keep cherished tax breaks, like the “carried interest” loophole. Herbert Hoover’s Republican Party wanted to put a chicken in every pot. Donald Trump’s wants to put a yacht at every private dock.

Having lavished so much money on the wealthy, the tax package — or at least the vague framework that the administration has released — doesn’t have much remaining to spend on middle class and poor families. For them, the package is a mix of pluses and minuses. Many face a lower tax rate, but some face a higher one, and many families lose deductions.

The combination creates a lot of losers. Reduced deductions for children, for example, hurt large families, notes N.Y.U.’s Lily Batchelder. And the deduction for state and local taxes — also a target for cuts — now benefits 30 percent of households nationwide. It was the main reason for last week’s House defections, and the tensions over it haven’t been resolved.

Then there are the long-term problems I mentioned earlier. First, Trump’s plan takes a skimpy approach to inflation adjustments, which will push many families into higher tax brackets over time. Second, the plan would radically increase the federal deficit, and when it comes to the deficit, what goes up must eventually come down. At some point, the government will need to pay its bills, through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.

Virtually any future deficit-reduction plan — except for a repeal of the Trump tax plan — would hurt most families more than his plan helps them. This chain of events has happened before. The Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts may have at first seemed to help the middle class and poor. But the deficits led to later cuts in education, medical research, transportation and anti-poverty programs that almost surely erased the benefits of a modest tax cut. Already, today’s congressional leaders are talking about sizable cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

Trump and his allies are feverishly trying to claim their plan really would benefit the middle class. Their latest talking point is the notion that corporate tax cuts will create an indirect windfall for workers. Funny, though, how the wealthy get most of the direct benefits, while everyone else has to hope for indirect ones somehow to materialize.

The main lesson of this year’s health care battle was the political power of facts. They don’t always win the day, but it’s better to have them as an ally than an enemy. Right now, facts are the biggest problem for Trump’s tax plan.

[Zelandakh]

And we're off...

[Zelandakh]

The indictment document is also available online.

[Zelandakh]

The charges are:-

#1 Conspiracy against the United States
#2 Conspiracy to launder money
#3-6 (Manafort) Failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts for 2011-2014
#7-9 (Gates) Failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts for 2011-2013
#10 Unregistered agent of a foreign principal
#11 False and misleading FARA statements
#12 False statements

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-October-29, 21:24, said:

Cmon, Winnie. Be real.

What stolen documents did the Trump campaign receive from the Russians? So far there's no proof of anything close to that happening.

The latest tale you have is Cambridge Analytica, a data analysis firm for the Republicans, talking to WikiLeaks Julian Assaunge and being told by Assaunge to go fly a kite. So there's no information transfer or collusion identified there either.

OTOH, somebody had to pay Steele/Fusion and the funds have been traced back to the DNC. I hardly think Steele/Fusion put the dossier together out of their own good will as a freebie. Or maybe, it was the legal firm that decided to seek the negative information on its own. Or were they acting as an agent/representative for the DNC and Hillary Clinton to find negative information on Trump? The purported millions paid for the dossier had to come from someplace.

Sorry for the late response but my computer is acting up.

As for your post, the problem is that there nothing to get upset about.

It was not a crime for the DNC/Clinton campaign to hire Fusion GPS to do opposition research.
It was not a crime for Fusion GPS to hire Steele, a British citizen and ex-MI-6 agent.
It was not illegal for Steele to pay Russians for information, if he did.
It was not illegal for Steele to put his findings in to a dossier of raw intelligence.
It was not illegal for Buzzfeed to publish the leaked dossier online.

The biggest problem Donald Trump has is that he continually acts like someone who is guilty and has something to hide about Russia.

[jjbrr]

Sort of unsurprisingly, the news from today doesn't offer us much in terms of Mueller's investigations of Trump/Russia collusion/2016 election.

I suppose it was sort of unrealistic to hope Mueller might go after the CEO's wife on the first wave, so this indicates that these investigations might go on for a long, long time.

[Zelandakh]

 jjbrr, on 2017-October-30, 09:55, said:

Sort of unsurprisingly, the news from today doesn't offer us much in terms of Mueller's investigations of Trump/Russia collusion/2016 election.

I suppose it was sort of unrealistic to hope Mueller might go after the CEO's wife on the first wave, so this indicates that these investigations might go on for a long, long time.

Given that the MO for FBI investigations is to start with the small fry at the bottom and work the way up it is almost surprising that we reached Manafort so quickly. The only real reason for that must be that the case against him and Gates is particularly clear and damning. The question that will most likely follow in the coming days and weeks is whether either of these two know something that can implicate one of the inner circle above them and, if they do, whether DT is prepared to push the PP button to make sure that no deal gets made. In the meantime it seems logical to discuss the scheme described in the indictment and the level of misinformation used to disguise it. I am guessing the one or other poster will have a couple of comments or questions on the matter.... Does anyone still think the matter is "fake news"?

[jjbrr]

I guess part of the problem is there are so many involved in this story that it's sort of difficult to predict where the investigation should start. Manafort and Flynn seem like slam dunks along with people like Carter Page, Felix Slater, Trump's lawyers, and others. I agree the case against Manafort and Gates must be a can of corn for the prosecutors, and I hope too they can flip someone to get some info.

edit: dumb typo

[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-October-30, 10:16, said:

Given that the MO for FBI investigations is to start with the small fry at the bottom and work the way up it is almost surprising that we reached Manafort so quickly. The only real reason for that must be that the case against him and Gates is particularly clear and damning. The question that will most likely follow in the coming days and weeks is whether either of these two know something that can implicate one of the inner circle above them and, if they do, whether DT is prepared to push the PP button to make sure that no deal gets made. In the meantime it seems logical to discuss the scheme described in the indictment and the level of misinformation used to disguise it. I am guessing the one or other poster will have a couple of comments or questions on the matter.... Does anyone still think the matter is "fake news"?

This may turn out turn out to be a bigger deal than Manafort:

Quote

George Papadopoulos’s plea was unsealed on Monday – the same day Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and a business associate, Rick Gates, were charged with money laundering, tax evasion, fraud and failing to register as agents of foreign interests.

But Papadopoulos is the first person to face criminal charges that cite interactions between Trump campaign associates and Russian intermediaries during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The Trump aide was told in April 2016 by an unnamed “professor” that Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails”. Wikileaks began to release thousands of Clinton’s hacked emails in March that year and further emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee in July, but it is unclear if these are the emails the professor was referring to.

Papadopoulos pleaded guilty on 5 October to one count of lying to FBI agents about the timing and nature of his interactions with “foreign nationals” who he thought had close connections to senior Russian government officials.

Papadopoulos was a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, which he joined in March 2016 after previously serving as an adviser for Ben Carson. The 30-year-old is a graduate of DePaul University in Chicago and was one of five foreign policy advisers announced by Trump in a March interview with the Washington Post. A second of the five, Carter Page, has also been under investigation for his ties to Russia.

PS: We can only hope that the Trump administration responds as well to its own crisis as it did and is still doing with the Puerto Rico hurricane crisis.

[Zelandakh]

 Winstonm, on 2017-October-30, 10:37, said:

This may turn out turn out to be a bigger deal than Manafort:

Right now that does appear to be the case, although Manafort is much more likely to have truly damning evidence to provide. The worst from Papadopoulos so far seems to be:

Quote

A “statement of the offense” document released by the special counsel’s office – which Papadopoulos agrees is accurate as part of his guilty plea – states that “on or about March 31, 2016,” Papadopoulos attended a national security meeting with Trump and other advisers, at which Papadopoulos stated that he “could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin”.

...which is fairly weak. Maybe more will turn up through this "professor" character or through the unnamed Russian woman - could that be the lawyer from the "orphans" meeting? Perhaps this is the connection that will lead upwards....time will tell.

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2017-October-30, 09:25, said:

Sorry for the late response but my computer is acting up.

As for your post, the problem is that there nothing to get upset about.

It was not a crime for the DNC/Clinton campaign to hire Fusion GPS to do opposition research.
It was not a crime for Fusion GPS to hire Steele, a British citizen and ex-MI-6 agent.
It was not illegal for Steele to pay Russians for information, if he did.
It was not illegal for Steele to put his findings in to a dossier of raw intelligence.
It was not illegal for Buzzfeed to publish the leaked dossier online.

The biggest problem Donald Trump has is that he continually acts like someone who is guilty and has something to hide about Russia.

If Fusion GPS accepted funds from the Russian intelligence connected firm and did not register as an agent of a foreign government, they are in big trouble.

The potential connection begs a lot of questions about them that should be investigated to assure no Russian interference with our democracy via the Democrats. What was the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Russians? Last fall, the analyst in his testimony before Congress indicated that it was common practice for the Russians to try to compromise people doing business with them in order to control them for future use. Did the Russians have any inkling that Clinton/DNC were looking for dirt on Trump with Fusion? If so, it presents a golden opportunity to feed disinformation to Clinton/DNC through Steele. How did Fusion find Steele? Could he be a Russian dupe?

As for your OPINION that Trump acts guilty, it has been distilled from your viewpoint that Trump shouldn't be President and must have colluded, so no big surprise. But it is an opinion and not fact at this point. IMO, President Trump just seems very exasperated by what he sees as spurious claims of collusion in an attempt to undermine his Presidency.

[hrothgar]

 rmnka447, on 2017-October-30, 12:57, said:

As for your OPINION that Trump acts guilty, it has been distilled from your viewpoint that Trump shouldn't be President and must have colluded, so no big surprise. But it is an opinion and not fact at this point. IMO, President Trump just seems very exasperated by what he sees as spurious claims of collusion in an attempt to undermine his Presidency.

You did see that George Papadopoulos has already plead out and was wearing a wire for the last 5 months or so...

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-October-30, 12:57, said:

If Fusion GPS accepted funds from the Russian intelligence connected firm and did not register as an agent of a foreign government, they are in big trouble.

The potential connection begs a lot of questions about them that should be investigated to assure no Russian interference with our democracy via the Democrats. What was the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Russians? Last fall, the analyst in his testimony before Congress indicated that it was common practice for the Russians to try to compromise people doing business with them in order to control them for future use. Did the Russians have any inkling that Clinton/DNC were looking for dirt on Trump with Fusion? If so, it presents a golden opportunity to feed disinformation to Clinton/DNC through Steele. How did Fusion find Steele? Could he be a Russian dupe?

As for your OPINION that Trump acts guilty, it has been distilled from your viewpoint that Trump shouldn't be President and must have colluded, so no big surprise. But it is an opinion and not fact at this point. IMO, President Trump just seems very exasperated by what he sees as spurious claims of collusion in an attempt to undermine his Presidency.

Now you are being silly. How did you go from "DNC/Clinton campaign paying for Fusion GPS" to "accepting funds from Russian intelligence"?

There is no reason to investigate irrational and idiotic claims made by Alex Jones or any other similar idiot.

Btw, I have never stated anywhere that Trump shouldn't be president. He won the election. If he worked with Russian intelligence, though, he should go to prison. Same as Hillary or anyone else should if they had done the same.

However, there has to be a reason to investigate. Trump has given ample reasons - he worked in Russia; his campaign members have lied repeatedly about Russian contacts; his campaign chairman and his national security adviser both received payments from Russia and/or Turkey; Trump himself fired the FBI director and stated he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he did so. Yada, yada, yadi...

Where is anything but speculation and innuendo about Clinton? Sean Hannity's claims do not validate a need for investigation of anything other than Sean Hannity's sources.

[Winstonm]

double post

[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-October-30, 11:32, said:

Right now that does appear to be the case, although Manafort is much more likely to have truly damning evidence to provide. The worst from Papadopoulos so far seems to be:


...which is fairly weak. Maybe more will turn up through this "professor" character or through the unnamed Russian woman - could that be the lawyer from the "orphans" meeting? Perhaps this is the connection that will lead upwards....time will tell.

Well, there is this:

Quote

Papadopoulos continued trying to arrange a meeting between the campaign and the Russian government, and he emailed a “Senior Policy Advisor” on the Trump campaign to tell them he had “some interesting messages coming in from Moscow about a trip when the time is right.”

In one email, a “high-ranking campaign official” forwarded Papadopoulos’ email to another campaign official and noted the need to “communicate that [Trump] is not doing these trips” and that they should send “someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.”

Didn't Carter Page take a trip to Russia around this time?

Maybe not the greatest source but I Googled this to find out when Page went to Russia and got this from the Washington Examiner:

Quote

President Trump's campaign team granted permission for then-adviser on national security issues Carter Page to visit Moscow last July where he delivered a speech criticizing U.S. sanctions against Russia.

Page on Tuesday confirmed that a representative of the Trump campaign approved the trip in June, telling him he could make the trip as a private citizen, not a representative of the campaign.

"I'm confirming that information," Page said, according to a report in USA Today. Page did not share the name of the individual who gave the green light.

So if you put it together, Papadopoulos wrote an e-mail to a campaign adviser who forwarded it to a "high level campaign official" who said the campaign should send someone low-level in the campaign "so as not to send a signal", and then Page was allowed to go to Russia the next month "provided he went as a private citizen and not a representative of the campaign".

A fairly unremarkable way of looking at this is that Page was sent incognito in order to hide the campaign's involvement with finding out what the Russians had to offer.

[jjbrr]

Trump campaign guys going to jail because of Hillary's emails is delicious irony.

[kenberg]

I have advocated not jumping to conclusions. At the risk of not taking my own advice, I think we have crossed a divide. Serious people are going to be sorting through options, none of them good.

I will be trying to understand this better as we go along, but one phrase that caught my eye was "money laundering". Like most people I have only a vague understanding of the details how this is actually done. But I understand it to be something done by crooks and so does everyone else. And the alleged scale is huge and international. Among other things, this means that a presidential pardon can be applied, if it can be done at all, only as the last presidential action before announcing resignation. At some point the public, almost all of it, abandons partisanship and says "No, you cannot do that". Congress will say the same, and so will the courts. So giving a presidential pardon here means he resigns or he is forced out by Congress. This will play out.


As Bette Davis said, "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night".