More Mueller news: Whitaker, Treason, and Farage.

[The Romulan Republic]

Anyway, back to the investigations, I caught a bit of Cohen's testimony today (not directly related to Mueller, but since the Cohen case is partly an off-shoot of his probe and some of Cohen's testimony has direct bearing on the collusion investigation, I'm putting it here).

Republicans, of course, were working to try to discredit his claims by ad hominem, insisting at closing that various news articles criticizing Cohen and his actions and honesty be read into the record, etc. There was a contentious dust-up between Congresswoman Talib and Congressman Meadows over whether or not she called Meadows a racist. The most interesting part to me, though, were the closing remarks by Cohen, and one line in particular, in which Cohen said that he feared that if Trump lost the election, there would not be a peaceful transition of power.

Yes, that's right. The President's former lawyer said in testimony under oath to Congress that he feared there would not be a peaceful transition of power if Trump lost. Its nothing I haven't said before, but to hear it in that context... that was definitely the Holy Shit moment of the day.

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's the exact quote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... QG2ZR?il=0

Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power," Cohen said during his closing remarks before the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee.

Frankly, this is in my opinion the most significant thing to come out of the Cohen investigation, and possibly all of the investigations. Not campaign finance violations, not obstruction, not collusion. But the fact that the President's personal lawyer and fixer believes (and has testified so under oath) that he is likely to attempt to hold power by force of arms in the event of electoral defeat next November.

Which means one of the criteria we need to be seriously considering as the Democratic primary goes forward is "Which candidate do we believe could most successfully prosecute a civil war against the Trump Regime".

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, the Florida State Bar is now investigating Congressman Gaetz for his threats against Cohen:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/matt-gaet ... hen-threat

Hopefully the fucker loses his liscence to practice law.

Also, the District of Columbia AG has subpoenaed Trump Inauguration financial records:

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1 ... 7171489803

[The Romulan Republic]

And it appears Stone just broke his gag order to refute Cohen's testimony:

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1 ... 5842660353

Seriously, is he trying to go to jail?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Stone is probably either thinking that he'll get a Pardon out of this or is showing his Russian handlers that he doesn't need to be killed... because even at this point a rich white old man would know when a judge has given a gag order, you follow it or ELSE.

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't know why anyone would be fool enough to hold out for a pardon at this point. Trump hasn't pardoned anyone in the Mueller probe or any related investigation. Often, he's thrown them under the bus. He has no loyalty to anyone but himself. I don't know why even a sociopath acting purely in self-interest would loyally serve him. The only ones who would would be those who genuinely drink the Trumper cool aid, or those who are afraid of what he (or his Kremlin puppeteers) might do to them if they stray. But really, the only smart course of action for anyone in the Trump circle right now is to cut the best deal they can with the Feds, as Mueller has shown time and again.

[bilateralrope]

And it appears Stone just broke his gag order to refute Cohen's testimony:

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1 ... 5842660353

Seriously, is he trying to go to jail?

Why would you link to a twitter post instead of the article the twitter post is linking to ?

Anyway, the full statement from Stone is: "Mr. Cohen's statement is not true."

The only thing that statement changes is that it broke the gag order. It's not going to change anyone's mind. We aren't talking about the smartest of people here.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed. But then, you'd have to be an imbecile to stay loyal to Trumpolini.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Yeah, and now we know the reasons why Mueller said that the Buzzfeed article was inaccurate...

[FireNexus]

Matt Gaetz is a colossal dumbass.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... it-for-you

Matt Gaetz overheard telling Trump about threatening Michael Cohen tweet: 'I was happy to do it for you'
by Daniel Chaitin
| February 28, 2019 10:26 AM
| Updated Feb 28, 2019, 10:45 AM

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., was observed discussing his threatening tweet about Michael Cohen with President Trump Wednesday evening.

According to Edward-Isaac Dovere, a staff writer at the Atlantic, Gaetz spoke to the president, who was in Hanoi, Vietnam for talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, over the phone.

"I was happy to do it for you. You just keep killing it," Gaetz was overhead saying.

A Gaetz spokesperson did not immediately respond for comment. The congressman told Dovere that he doesn't discuss his conversations with the president.

The night before Cohen's testimony before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, Gaetz asked Cohen on Twitter, "Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot..."

Gaetz later deleted the tweet and apologized for comments many regarded as threatening to Cohen. Gaetz's apology came in response to a statement from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., admonishing Gaetz for his comments and suggested they be examined by the House Ethics Committee.


During the hearing, which Gaetz attended although he is not a member of the oversight panel, it was reported that the congressman became the subject of a probe into his tweets about Cohen by the Florida state bar.

In the evening Wednesday, Gaetz tweeted that he apologized to Cohen. "Regardless of disagreements, family members should be off-limits from attacks from representatives, senators & presidents, including myself. Let’s leave the Cohen family alone," he said.

[The Romulan Republic]

Jesus Christ. If they can prove it did it on orders from Trumpolini, then that means we can add Witness Tampering to the articles of impeachment, in addition to bolstering the Obstruction case.

[The Romulan Republic]

Mueller continues to battle with a mystery company for information:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/28/politics ... index.html

Mueller apparently wants documents. The company argues that as a foreign-owned entity (ie a company owned by a foreign government) it should be immune, and refused to turn over documents. Mueller asked that they be found in contempt of court. A judge agreed, and is fining them 50,000 dollars a day (now up to over 2 million dollars) while they fight it in court.

Much is unknown about the company fighting Mueller's subpoena. However, Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia filled in the backstory on Thursday when she publicly released six opinions she wrote since the company first brought the case in August 2018. In those opinions, the name of the country and of the company from which Mueller seeks key documents is still redacted.

The opinions confirm, in the surest language yet, that the company's records are essential to an ongoing grand jury investigation and relate to "foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election and potential collusion in those efforts by American citizens," according to Howell's own words.

[bilateralrope]

One of the podcasts I listen to mentioned that Stone's gag order allows him to make proclamations of innocence, and that saying that someone is lying when they accuse him of things probably counts as such a proclamation. So he might not have broken the gag order.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Looks like we might have an Al Capone ending to this entire affair...

[Gandalf]

The difference being that the Republicans appear to be by and large way more lockstep in following their leader into absolutely horrific things (a few notable examples aside). But yeah, none of that has any bearing on Mueller.

It is, however, an extremely important point, because branding an entire party by the actions of its worst members rather than the overall climate of the party is how the "Both Sides are Just As Bad" narrative thrives, how it spreads cynicism and apathy, and how it ultimately falsely normalizes the worst players (like Trump) while destroying trust in democracy.

It's irrelevant how lockstep they are in their actions, as one can't really cast a half vote. If the party thinks enough of someone to endorse them, then that includes their positive and negative actions. To be slightly antiquated, to venerate FDR means honouring the New Deal, but also consciously overlooking the internment camps. So if the Democrats want Joe Manchin to have a D after his name, then that means that they can't be too bothered by things like voting for Kavanagh, and so on.

So until the Democrats actually lift their game on the worst parts of their party, why shouldn't people constantly raise these issues? One can't just vote for atrocities and then move on as though it's yesterday's news.

[The Romulan Republic]

Because not every Democrat voted for the atrocities in question, and even fewer endorse them now. THIS. MATTERS. Because the alternative is to brand the entire party by the worst action of its worst member, in which case one will (if one wishes to be consistent, rather than simply using this "logic" to attack the Democrats) be forced to conclude that every major organization ever created by human beings was irredeemably corrupt and evil. Which is how we get a society of apathetic cynics who will countenance anything because "They're all just as bad" and nothing really matters. Its how you get a culture that allowed Trump to get elected- not because most Americans are white nationalists, but because most Americans simply didn't care enough to stop him.

But I suppose reflexive cynicism masquerading as wisdom is the order of the day, these days.

[Jub]

Is it wrong to expect the Dems to police their own the way the GoP does? You seem more Dems crossing the lines and voting for GoP sponsored ideas than you see the GoP going the other way. So why don't the Dems work harder on party solidarity?

It doesn't need to be full on lockstep crazy like the GoP is but a more unified, more well defined, more well-branded Democratic Party would have easily prevented 2016 Russia or no Russia. You can't just be the party of status quo and the lesser of two-evils and expect to win votes. I can show you the march right and the GoP stamp on America since 9/11/2001 but you'd be hard-pressed to show the same magnitude of change running the other way over that same 18-year span.

The GoP, as awful as it has, has a powerful brand going. They have a strong message, a united party, and very few defectors even in tough times. They're designed to steal elections and control the message what are the Dems designed to do? Why can the GoP gerrymander districts seemingly at will while the Dems can never fix them? Why aren't the Dems playing the same game, dirty as it is, in the name of what they should see as the greater good? They've had decades to counter the Southern Strategy and aren't exactly showing that they have any idea of how to counter it.

This isn't to say that the Dems are an awful party with no redeeming features either, they just have serious flaws and in a two-party system, those flaws are easily exploited.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, as you note, its a fine line between maintaining solidarity and ending up with the cult of the leader crap the Republicans have going on.

That said, I've been saying for a while that the party should consider withholding support from Manchin (who turned his coat on the Kavanaugh vote, and IIRC made comments supportive of Trump declaring a state of emergency).

Edit: I also refuse to respect any Democrat who continues to make excuses for that sexual predator Bill Clinton, or similar figures in the party.

[Gandalf]

Because not every Democrat voted for the atrocities in question, and even fewer endorse them now. THIS. MATTERS. Because the alternative is to brand the entire party by the worst action of its worst member, in which case one will (if one wishes to be consistent, rather than simply using this "logic" to attack the Democrats) be forced to conclude that every major organization ever created by human beings was irredeemably corrupt and evil. Which is how we get a society of apathetic cynics who will countenance anything because "They're all just as bad" and nothing really matters. Its how you get a culture that allowed Trump to get elected- not because most Americans are white nationalists, but because most Americans simply didn't care enough to stop him.

But I suppose reflexive cynicism masquerading as wisdom is the order of the day, these days.

Not every Democrat voted for Iraq, the Patriot Act, and any other number of the Bush/Obama era atrocities, but how many Democrats in high or influential positions voted for them? How many have since recanted their position? Maybe if the Democrats tried a little harder, people would be less apathetic about them.

I don't expect anything from Republicans except weird theocracy. I expect more from Democrats.

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay, the thing is, one of the defining differences between the Democrats and Republicans is arguably that the Democrats aren't such a lock-step party. This has strengths and weaknesses, but it means that you can't really judge the entire party by its worst members. You even acknowledge that the Democrats don't all lockstep support the same issues, and yet you insist on collectively blaming them as though they do. Its not that you're holding the party to a high standard- that's good. Its that you seem to be holding it to an impossible standard, where if any of its leaders errs, the entire party must be condemned. And you see this line of reasoning so often from the worst actors (and those who are most hostile to the Democratic Party) that its hard for me to see it as anything other than an argument to undermine the Democratic Party, not to reform it.

In other news, it looks like Nixon's slime trail has violated his gag order again to accuse Mueller of framing him.

[The Romulan Republic]

Opinion piece in the Washington Post by James Comey, arguing for transparency in the Mueller report:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... f59fd305c9

[The Romulan Republic]

Paul Manafort gets four years:

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/7/18253686/p ... ump-russia

I am deeply disappoint at such a light sentence (the recommended sentence was 19-24 years), but he has a second sentencing coming up, and possible state-level charges in his future too. In any case, this is the heaviest sentence yet handed down over the Mueller probe.

Edit: He's also been fined 24 million dollars in restitution.

[The Romulan Republic]

Backlash seems to be brewing against Judge Ellis. Some have noted his conduct during the trial, where he appeared to favor Manafort, and are suggesting that huge divergence from the recommended sentence was politically-motivated.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestie ... 8f0e215256

It is striking that a judge just sentenced Paul Manafort, a major target of the Mueller investigation, to only 47 months in prison. The Sentencing Guidelines justified a sentence well above fifteen years. It was all-important that Manafort, who had been the head of the Trump presidential campaign, receive a strong sentence.
This was partly for the general reason in sentencing, to send the message to potential malefactors of the consequences. But, it was also needed to persuade Manafort to tell Mueller (and, eventually, in some forum, the public) the truth about President Trump and Russia.

Instead, this weak sentence sends these kind of messages of a conservative judge: it is not so bad to use Republican connections to cash in with Putin’s allies; Trump’s campaign manager is worthy of much, much more respect than in the Sentencing Guidelines; Mueller’s quest for the Russia connection deserves little help, and some messages.
Senior U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis was nominated to the bench in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, who of course favored very conservative picks. Before then, he had worked since 1970 for Hunton and Williams, a very well known, quite conservative, Richmond firm.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE



President Reagan nominated Judge Ellis to the Eastern District of Virginia. Presidents have a special reason to want to stack that particular court with strong conservatives. The Pentagon and the CIA are in that district. There is a great desire among conservatives to stack that district court to handle the cases that concern national security brought in that district, including espionage cases.
Take a comparison of the Manafort case with another prosecution of a political figure, a black Democratic Congressman from a black district in Louisiana named William J. Jefferson. (I was a peripheral observer of that case. The FBI had raided Jefferson’s Congressional office and carried off his computer hard drive. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the violation of Congressional independence by that raid, and I was the principal witness (because I knew the established limits on prosecution tactics as a former House General Counsel and I was now a professor.))
Jefferson’s case was basically bribery. It was nationally famous because agents raiding his house found cash in the freezer.
Manafort may have gotten off easy with four years, but Ellis threw the book at Jefferson. In 2009 Ellis sentenced Jefferson to 13 years, the longest sentence of any Congressman to that date. (After further twists and turns Ellis let off Jefferson in December 2017 for five years time served.) It seems that while Judge Ellis can sympathize with Manafort, the Republican presidential campaign manager, he did not sympathize with Jefferson.
Everything now depends on the sentence Manafort receives in his other case, and whether it is consecutive or concurrent. Imagine the relief for Trump if it is a sentence no longer than 47 months and it runs concurrently. If Manafort had gotten (or still gets) a sentence of more than 15 years, Trump would face the problem of pardoning Manafort to prevent him from experiencing great pressure to cooperate with Mueller.
The press and public have been waiting for the first use of the pardon power as a major statement about Trump.
Now, Trump might just get off and not need to display the pardon weapon. Trump should say "Thank you, Judge Ellis."

Rep. Connolly: Judge should have recused himself:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... tv=vpx.cnn

Judge Ellis should be impeached for blatant, partisan abuse of power.

Edit: On the other hand, it says something about the strength of Mueller's case that even with such a biased judge (and at least one Trumper getting through juror selection), Manafort still was found guilty on numerous counts and sentenced to four years and a 24 million dollar fine.

Hopefully his second sentencing hearing will deliver the sentence he deserves.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

... there is stupid then there is stupid... these transcripts have been... enlightening to say the least.