|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 9:07:28 GMT -5
Do you recall that the redactions were performed with the Mueller team? That the only matters that Congress cannot see are grand jury materials and that it would violate federal law to release them? That select members of Congress are free to review those portions redacted for national security reasons but that not a single Democrat has chided to view this? At this point this whole think is purely political. The Flynn judge doesn't think so. I'm looking forward to the Mueller sit-down with Congress to learn more of what he did or didn't do. Excuse me for not wanting to take Barr's word for it. I'm letting it, as well as the other 14 (or so) Mueller referrals, play out. I also would not take anyone’s word at this juncture. As Barr stated, we must look to the origins of the spying on the President and his campaign, and one must await the results of the investigation to determine whether there was a proper predicate for the surveillance.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 8:12:29 GMT -5
Mueller squeezed Flynn trying to obtain evidence of collusion, and this failed. A snippet of a voicemail between attorneys without the full context is not very persuasive. And remember not even Mueller and found that this constituted obstruction — and if coulda, he woulda. This chapter is closed for all but the rabid partisans. Now the next chapter will likely unfold... Fox News this morning: Nothing to see here, nothing to see here...look away, look away... I'm looking forward to the next unveiling of the Redacted Mueller Report. Among other things, this shows Barr was redaction-friendly. Do you recall that the redactions were performed with the Mueller team? That the only matters that Congress cannot see are grand jury materials and that it would violate federal law to release them? That select members of Congress are free to review those portions redacted for national security reasons but that not a single Democrat has chided to view this? At this point this whole think is purely political.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 7:30:42 GMT -5
Mueller squeezed Flynn trying to obtain evidence of collusion, and this failed. A snippet of a voicemail between attorneys without the full context is not very persuasive. And remember not even Mueller and found that this constituted obstruction — and if coulda, he woulda. This chapter is closed for all but the rabid partisans. Now the next chapter will likely unfold... It’s interesting how you talk a lot about folks taking things out of context but you do it consistently in your posts... Please do not misrepresent my statement. I said that the above snippet was lacking the complete context, not that folks are taking things out of context. Otherwise, I will not engage in personal back-and-forth as I do not believe that this is conducive to an objective discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 17, 2019 6:48:51 GMT -5
www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-flynn-special-counsel-influence-cooperation_n_5cdde720e4b00e035b8cfb90Thursday’s memo also notes that Flynn provided a voicemail to investigators of one of those possible attempts to sway him, which was referenced in the full redacted version of Mueller’s report. A personal attorney for Trump left the message on the phone of Flynn’s lawyer.
“t wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with ... the government,” the voicemail states, according to Mueller’s office. “if ... there’s information that implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, ... so, you know, ... we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can ... [R]emember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains.”
I like the "protecting all our interests" line... Mueller squeezed Flynn trying to obtain evidence of collusion, and this failed. A snippet of a voicemail between attorneys without the full context is not very persuasive. And remember not even Mueller and found that this constituted obstruction — and if coulda, he woulda. This chapter is closed for all but the rabid partisans. Now the next chapter will likely unfold...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 16, 2019 20:11:17 GMT -5
Interesting take. I don’t see much Mac at all. From those clips, RJ appears to be a below the rim player with very little lift on his jumper and drives to the hole. I’d bet that is one of the reasons for his 3* ranking going into EYBL. And maybe that’s how/why we can get him. He scores in traffic way better than Akinjo though. He has a killer floater. If you have the ability watch the game he had against Christ the king with Cockburn and Cisse. You will wonder how is he scoring on these drives with 2 7 footers in the paint. RJ is the type of player that a school like GU needs. He will be a 3-4 year player, and can come in when James/Mac are juniors and acclimate himself to college. We are not going to compete for one and dones, nor should we.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 16, 2019 13:04:48 GMT -5
Not sure where to put this, but Kenny Johnson is likely replacing Broadus at UMD. Broadus was a really good recruiter for them, and they end up hiring someone even better. Ugh. I guess it's not really going to impact the Hoyas if we aren't really going to bother with local recruits. I am not sure of the basis of the statement that we are not trying to get local recruits. Pat got Pickett late in his first class, and kept Walker in the fold. While Mac and Qudus are not in the immediate DMV, their travel team on a big player in Virginia. It looks like we are recruiting locals like Williams, Timberlake etc for 2020, I think it is too early to make a judgment on our success,, but to say we do not try is a bit much.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 15, 2019 20:18:05 GMT -5
I agree that these tax issues are not going to move the needle as currently presented, but that doesn't mean they are not newsworthy. What would likely move the needle is an article stating "President Trump has committed tax fraud for each of the last 15 years, and here is incontrovertible proof. President Trump will almost certainly be residing in a cell next to Michael Cohen when his term ends." I don't think we will be seeing that article, although I suppose it's possible that we might if Trump were to release his tax returns. If a prominent high wealth individual committed tax fraud for 15 years don’t you think the IRS would have found something? But if only Trump turns his tax returns to a House Committee the whistle would be blown? It looks like the tax returns have taken over for the conspiracy-mongers now that Russian collusion hopes went up in smoke.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 15, 2019 10:50:05 GMT -5
The other issues concerning this article are as follows: 1. In 1995 the NYT reported on this, and the headline was "The Comeback Kid". The article expressly noted the $1 bl. loss, and described a gala at which Trump was feted for his contributions to the NY business community. 2. Trump wrote a book about this entire issue, "The Art of the Comeback", and he spoke about this publicly for years. 3. Any person familiar with private business knows that there are ups and downs in any business, particularly one as volatile and speculative as real estate investment. It is also common knowledge that the tax code is very complicated is vulnerable to employment of strategies to minimize or avoid tax liability -- just look at the tax bills -- or lack thereof -- of Apple, etc. I suspect that this is the reaction of a good deal of people to a report like this. So in truth this was not new information -- it was out there for over two decades, and the same paper reported on this ins a favorable, or neutral at best manner, 24 years ago. The new article lacked context and failed to mention the "comeback" about which it reported 24 years ago. My point is not to defend the business practices of over 30 years ago. Rather, this type of article reinforces the view that the NYT is biased, which only feeds into the Trump "Fake News" mantra. I can see how you'd take it that way. However, taken in a different context, Trump's taxes are, like it or not, in the news lately and the article was/is relevant to that. Additionally, with regard to the "comeback", Trump is certainly free to release the returns displaying that comeback. He's chosen no to. "Why not?" is a valid and relevant question in that regard. As far as companies such as Apple are concerned, they're not declaring huge losses. Equating Trump's returns to those of successful companies is a stretch (at best) until there is evidence to the contrary. Trump also "wrote" a book called, "The Art of the Deal." That book was directly referencing the years in which he incurred huge losses and has been shown to be glaringly misleading to put it kindly. Assuming Trump is telling the truth about anything, verbally or in print, seems naive or silly or both. I will not argue the points you make. I guess my point is that this type of stuff does not move the needle. His supporters are not going to change their minds nor will his distractors. I don’t think the average person is going to say “I was going to vote for him, but now that I saw his depreciation schedule from 1989 I have second thoughts”. Or, “I hate him, but I like the fact that he was “the comeback kid” according to the New York Times in 1995”.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 15, 2019 9:01:34 GMT -5
With the caveat that this is a very silly issue, it looks like the NYT story about $1 bl in tax losses over a 10 year period over a generation ago did not have the desired effect. When will the left realize that these hit pieces do not resonate? The media just can't stop itself: "But despite news stories about his enterprises running up losses so great that they afforded him massive write-downs, most voters still see the president as a successful businessman, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll. A majority, 54 percent, say they think Trump has been successful in business, the poll shows, while 36 percent say he has been unsuccessful. One in 10 voters say they have no opinion about his success." www.politico.com/story/2019/05/15/donald-trump-business-poll-1322650You may call it a "hit piece." In, literally, any other administration, it would have been viewed as information that the voting public had a right to have divulged. Because it reflects negatively on the President doesn't make it a hit piece and its value isn't directly tied to polling. It's an indicator of both his business acumen and his character. People can do what they wish with that information. Personally, I like to be relatively informed about the people for whom I vote and those for whom I don't. This is, IMO, valuable information however it affects the voting public. Keep in mind as well the wording of the question. "Business" as a general term on the level of billionaires has a certain connotation for many "regular folks" that aren't necessarily positive. The other issues concerning this article are as follows: 1. In 1995 the NYT reported on this, and the headline was "The Comeback Kid". The article expressly noted the $1 bl. loss, and described a gala at which Trump was feted for his contributions to the NY business community. 2. Trump wrote a book about this entire issue, "The Art of the Comeback", and he spoke about this publicly for years. 3. Any person familiar with private business knows that there are ups and downs in any business, particularly one as volatile and speculative as real estate investment. It is also common knowledge that the tax code is very complicated is vulnerable to employment of strategies to minimize or avoid tax liability -- just look at the tax bills -- or lack thereof -- of Apple, etc. I suspect that this is the reaction of a good deal of people to a report like this. So in truth this was not new information -- it was out there for over two decades, and the same paper reported on this ins a favorable, or neutral at best manner, 24 years ago. The new article lacked context and failed to mention the "comeback" about which it reported 24 years ago. My point is not to defend the business practices of over 30 years ago. Rather, this type of article reinforces the view that the NYT is biased, which only feeds into the Trump "Fake News" mantra.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 15, 2019 7:06:02 GMT -5
With the caveat that this is a very silly issue, it looks like the NYT story about $1 bl in tax losses over a 10 year period over a generation ago did not have the desired effect. When will the left realize that these hit pieces do not resonate? The media just can't stop itself: "But despite news stories about his enterprises running up losses so great that they afforded him massive write-downs, most voters still see the president as a successful businessman, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll. A majority, 54 percent, say they think Trump has been successful in business, the poll shows, while 36 percent say he has been unsuccessful. One in 10 voters say they have no opinion about his success." www.politico.com/story/2019/05/15/donald-trump-business-poll-1322650
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 14, 2019 20:43:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 14, 2019 12:54:33 GMT -5
I believe Davis would be an important recruit for GU. Patrick could break into NY area market, Davis is a versatile guard with a very good shot, and a great student as well.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 14, 2019 12:41:36 GMT -5
Without a profile of the 1400 or so people being polled, it's difficult to assess any level of meaning to the poll itself. Keep in mind, that article/poll is from 2014. Good points. And I missed that the poll was from 3014. However given that Clinton ran as the person who would implement Obama’s policies, and lost, I still think there are red flags re: Biden. In 2016 Sanders and Trump generates enthusiasm while Clinton was an unexciting insider. It will be interesting to see if this dynamic continues with Biden, or whether the Democratic base hatred for Trump generates the enthusiasm that may be missing for Biden as another DC insider.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 14, 2019 12:12:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 14, 2019 7:32:30 GMT -5
The Mueller report reaffirmed that the F.B.I. opened its investigation based on legitimate factors, including revelations that a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had told a diplomat from Australia, a close American ally, that he was informed that the Russians had stolen Democratic emails.I look forward to hearing more about Peter Strojk and Lisa Page... I will wait to see what the IG and AG find.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 14, 2019 7:22:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 13, 2019 20:52:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 11, 2019 15:43:14 GMT -5
Jim Baker hired me in 2006 when he was Counsel for the Office of Intelligence Policy & Review (OIPR). OIPR became part of the National Security Division after a reorganization within the Department of Justice. A good man and an excellent lawyer. A lot of the criticism seems to be driven by the notion that the FBI’s investigation was, and is, an effort to undermine or discredit President Trump. That assumption is wrong. The FBI’s investigation must be viewed in the context of the bureau’s decades-long effort to detect, disrupt and defeat the intelligence activities of the governments of the Soviet Union and later the Russian Federation that are contrary to the fundamental and long-term interests of the United States. As Benjamin Wittes quoted me saying, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation regarding the 2016 campaign fundamentally was not about Donald Trump but was about Russia. Full stop. It was always about Russia. It was about what Russia was, and is, doing and planning. Of course, if that investigation revealed that anyone—Russian or American—committed crimes in connection with Russian intelligence activities or unlawfully interfered with the investigation, the FBI has an obligation under the law to investigate such crimes and to seek to bring those responsible to justice. The FBI’s enduring counterintelligence mission is the reason the Russia investigation will, and should, continue—no matter who is fired, pardoned or impeached. www.lawfareblog.com/why-i-do-not-hate-donald-trumpIt looks like we are getting a preview of the identities of those who will be featured prominently in the IG report. Preemptive defenses? First Comey with his CNN townhall, now Baker. Who is next?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 10, 2019 13:42:22 GMT -5
Two years, 19 prosecutors, 39 FBI agents, $30/40 million and no charges re: conspiracy or collusion — that is my response. That's not true. Mueller's investigation definitely charged people with conspiracy. Manafort being one of them. Not sure why you're bringing up how much the investigation cost when the revenue it generated was similar to the cost. Just Manafort had to pay $25M. If money is really the issue here, I'm sure they could more than cover it if they looked at Trump's taxes. To be clear, the investigation did not lead to criminal indictments or convictions of the president or his team with respect to national collection interference. This was the primary purpose and target of the investigation. To the extent that there were collateral convictions, these had nothing to do with Russian interference in the election. So the investigation came up empty on Trump despite the massive amount of resources described above. I wonder how many political people in Washington would come out clean if such resources were devoted to them – – and I am speaking of both parties, to be clear.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on May 10, 2019 9:39:18 GMT -5
“Unpatriotic”? Do you mean using Clinton political opposition research obtained by a foreign national Steele from Russia to obtain a FISA warrant on a opposing campaign? I'm glad I added my last paragraph because that's right where you went. Absolutely, that should be investigated and is being investigated. I'll withhold judgment on what happened and why pending the results of that investigation. But you have nothing to say at all about the issues above that? Two years, 19 prosecutors, 39 FBI agents, $30/40 million and no charges re: conspiracy or collusion — that is my response.
|
|