The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
The Mueller Investigation Thread - in which Rudy Guiliani talks about obstruction
Posts
Manafort's previous civil case asking for dismissal was dismissed by a different judge.
I'm not, like, ordering pitchforks from Amazon or anything, but I am concerned.
I mean, maybe it's nefarious, but it feels pretty familiar to me.
The judge was being a little hostile, but seeing how insane any trial will be from where he's sitting I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. It's not unreasonable to ask someone who's towing such a whirlwind of shit behind them where they plan on parking.
Even though I didn’t expect the questions the judge is putting forward, but I didn’t think a trial is necessarily disastrous for him. If and when the procedural questions are resolved and the case goes forward, it’ll involve a jury. And juries, more than judges, are full of surprises.
Security clearance for Russia probe may be hard for Giuliani: legal experts
An excerpt:
You know, assuming Giuliani isn't preemptively canned for being a trash fire.
No thankfully Trump seems unaware of this power.
The TLDR as far as I understand it is that Trump won a bid because he had the financial backing of Tom Barrack's real estate company. Which then mysteriously dropped him the instant he won the bid. Trump then used that bid as collateral to secure loans from Deutsche Bank. This was at the height of the birther thing so the government didn't want to contest the issue for fear of a media firestorm. But it's super weird because it's essentially Tom Barrack loaning his good name to Trump for zero return.
The problem was is that, well, this entire Manafort thing about back fraud on the 2000's IS about putting pressure on Manafort in order to get him to squeal on Trump.
That's perfectly fine and not illegal. But the SC decided to not be upfront about it and dodge the question when pressed. The judge didn't liked that. Also, he asked to see the uncensored Rosenstein memo that expands the scope of the investigation since apparently it now covers Manafort's old crimes and the SC said no. The judge also didn't liked that.
It also sounded to me like the judge really just wants to run down and clarify everything. I didn't take is as hostile, just curmudgeony and thorough. IANAL etc of course.
Also asking about classified documents then having this leak so quickly...
I really want the interviewer to interrupt when Trump's water carriers say something like that and just bluntly ask if they think the President is above the Law.
Also Trump: "I plead the fifth."
It's just a variation on "the only moral abortion is my own."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/06/politics/rudy-giuliani-trump-fifth-amendment/index.html
If it helps that he knew, then he knew
If it hurts, he didn’t
“Your honor, whatever part of this whole thing is the illegal parts, that’s what my client didn’t do. The defense rests.”
That is an interesting position.
It helps when you have a client that doesn't require those to be in any conventional temporary order - Trump knows a lot of things he's never learned, and knows even less of the things he has learned (probably multiple times).
It's the prosecutor's problem if they assume there is any link between learning and knowing on Trump's part - and god help them if they have to prove that.