Trump -psykoosi

taantumu kirjoitti:
Oikeusministeriö kertoi että huhut joiden mukaan raportti valmistuisi ensi viikolla eivät pidä paikkaansa.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mue...clicksource_77_2_hero_headlines_headlines_hed

Paul Manafort on saamassa viimein tuomionsa Muellerin syytteistä ja Manhattanin pääsyyttäjä valmistautuu syyttämään Manafortia osavaltion lakien rikkomisesta. Prosessi oli jäissä häiriöiden välttämiseksi Muellerin syyttäessä Manafortia. Syytteitä on tulossa ainakin pankkilaiilla kikkailusta. Manhattanin pääsyyttäjän nimi Cyrus Vance Jr. saattaa kuulostaa tutulta sillä hänen isänsä Cyrus Vance Sr. toimi Carterin ulkoministerinä.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/nyregion/manafort-pardon-trump.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Cyrus Vance Sr elää valitettavan ikuisesti myös muinaisen Euroviisu/Syksyn Sävel/tms -kilpailun Sairas Vääns renkutuksen muodossa :poop:
 
Syyttäjät antoivat tuomiotoiveensa Paul Manafortin toisesta oikeudenkäynnistä ja vaatimuksena on 17 -22 vuotta. Syyttäjät mahdollisesti pyytävät tämän alkamaan vasta ensimmäisen oikeudenkäynnin 19-24 vuoden tuomion jälkeen. Syyttäjien mukaan Manafort on kova ilman syyllisyydentuntoa oleva rikollinen joka valehteli kirjanpitäjilleen, lakimiehilleen, valtionvarain- ja oikeusministeriölle, FBI:lle Muellerille, suurelle valamiehistölle, kongressille jne.
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is a “hardened” criminal who “repeatedly and brazenly violated the law,” prosecutors told a Washington federal judge.

But in the filing submitted Friday and made partially public Saturday they recommended no specific punishment for those crimes, saying that is the practice of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, whose office brought the case.

Prosecutors noted that federal guidelines call for a sentence of 17 to 22 years, although under Manafort’s guilty plea in his D.C. case, the maximum he faces behind bars is 10. The special counsel team said it may ask for Judge Amy Berman Jackson to impose a sentence that runs after any prison time Manafort is given for related crimes in Virginia federal court.

“Manafort chose repeatedly and knowingly to violate the law,” prosecutors said, from “garden-variety crimes such as tax fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and bank fraud” to “more esoteric laws” involving foreign lobbying.

He lied, they noted, “to tax preparers, bookkeepers, banks, the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice National Security Division, the FBI, the Special Counsel’s Office, the grand jury, his own legal counsel, Members of Congress, and members of the executive branch of the United States government.”

He committed crimes while leading a presidential campaign and while out on bail before trial, and then lied to investigators after pleading guilty, prosecutors said, revealing “a hardened adherence to committing crimes and lack of remorse.”

The charges in both cases flow from Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The filing helps pave the way for Manafort’s sentencings in D.C. and Virginia scheduled for next month, as Mueller begins wrapping up his probe.

But the redacted, public document gives no details about Manafort’s campaign interactions with Russians. Prosecutors had previously asked the judge for permission to seal material either because it related to “ongoing law enforcement investigations” or “uncharged individuals.”

As part of his plea deal in September, Manafort, 69, acknowledged he was guilty of everything he was accused of both in Washington, D.C. and in Virginia: making millions as an unregistered lobbyist for Ukrainian politicians, hiding that money to avoid paying taxes, defrauding banks to pay his debts when his oligarch patrons fell out of power, and lying to cover up his crimes while trying to persuade witnesses to do the same.

When he appears in front of Jackson on March 13, he will already have been sentenced March 8 for related crimes in federal court in Alexandria, Va., barring any change in the scheduling as now set for those hearings.Jackson could make the sentence she imposes run during or after his Virginia prison term. In Virginia, where Manafort was found guilty of bank and tax fraud at trial, there is no upper limit to his sentence.

In Alexandria, prosecutors have also asked only for a “serious” sentence. Federal guidelines in that case call for him to spend roughly 19 to 24 years in prison.

Mueller’s prosecutors have been handing off other pending legal matters to the U.S. attorney’s office for D.C., and the Department of Justice is readying for Mueller to formally conclude his work.

In New York, the Manhattan district attorney is preparing to charge Manafort with violating state tax laws and committing other financial crimes, a move designed to ensure Trump’s former campaign chairman spends time in prison if the president pardons him for the convictions stemming from Mueller’s probe, Bloomberg News and the New York Times reported Friday. Trump has not indicated whether he intends to pardon Manafort, though he repeatedly expressed support for him as his trial played out last year. New York’s double jeopardy law, which protects defendants from being prosecuted twice for the same crimes, could pose a challenge for the district attorney’s office, however.

Attorneys for Manafort are not due to file their sentencing recommendation in D.C. until Monday, having told Jackson that this week’s snowstorm made it harder to meet with their client in the Alexandria jail where he has been held, and asking for a delay.

Under his plea agreement in D.C. federal prosecutors had agreed to ask Jackson to give Manafort credit at sentencing for cooperation. But because she found he lied to investigators and breached that agreement, they are no longer bound by it.

Jackson found Manafort lied about his interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime aide who the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence. Those contacts, prosecutors said in court, go “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.”

Manafort gave inconsistent accounts of an August 2016 meeting in New York City at which he and Kilimnik discussed a peace plan for Ukraine, a top foreign policy priority for Russia. At the time, Manafort was still leading President Trump’s campaign. He also lied about sharing polling data with Kilimnik in 2016, prosecutors said in describing how he broke his deal to cooperate truthfully.

The judge also concluded that Manafort lied about a payment that he claimed was a loan and as part of another Justice Department investigation whose focus has not been described publicly.

Defense attorneys have maintained that Manafort did not intentionally give false information and that any inconsistencies were honest mistakes.

In 2017, Kilimnik denied to The Washington Post having connections to Russian intelligence. He was indicted with Manafort on charges of conspiring to obstruct justice through witness tampering.

Kilimnik is believed to be in Moscow and therefore probably safe from arrest because Russia does not extradite its citizens.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.63912130463d
 
CBS:n mukaan kuulemisessa Cohen aikoo esittää todisteita veropetoksesta. ABC News puolestaan kertoo, että Cohenilla on hallussaan asiakirjoja, kuten Trumpin kirjanpitäjän dokumentteja ja presidentin henkilökohtaisia tiliotteita, jotka todistavat, että Trump on liioitellut tai vähätellyt omaisuuttaan sen mukaan, mikä on palvellut hänen tai hänen yritystensä etua.

https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000006015989.html

Uutistoimisto Reutersin mukaan Cohen aikoo kertoa senaatissa myös Trumpin presidentinvaalikampanjan aikaisesta tornitalohankkeesta Moskovassa.

Kaikesta muusta Teflon Don selviää taas kerran, mutta jos todisteet veropetoksesta pitävät paikkansa niin sitten menee jo todella tiukille :ROFLMAO:
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
  • Tykkää
Reactions: M-1
Liitovaltion valitustuomioistuimen kolme tuomaria päätti yksimielisesti Muellerin tutkinnan olevan perustuslain mukainen. Valituksen oli tehnyt Roger Stonen apuri Andrew Miller joka ei ole suostunut suuren valamiehistön kuultavaksi, aiemmin kaksi alempaa oikeusituinta oli jo todennut tutkinnan lailliseksi..
A federal appeals court in Washington unanimously affirmed the validity of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s appointment Tuesday, rejecting a challenge brought by an associate of President Trump’s embattled longtime adviser Roger Stone.

The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit comes after Stone pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to try to conceal his efforts to learn about the release of hacked Democratic Party emails during the 2016 campaign.

The separate constitutional challenge to Mueller’s appointment was brought by Stone’s associate Andrew Miller, who has been trying to block a grand jury subpoena from the special counsel’s office. Miller was held in contempt by a lower-court judge for failing to testify before the grand jury as part of Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the last presidential election.

Miller’s attorney, Paul Kamenar, said Tuesday he is disappointed with the decision from a three-judge panel and considering whether to ask the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case or go directly to the Supreme Court.

A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment on the opinion Tuesday, or to say whether the special counsel would continue to seek Miller’s testimony before wrapping up its investigation.

Two district court judges in Washington — one nominated by a Democrat, the other by Trump — had already upheld the legitimacy of Mueller’s appointment in recent rulings. The opinion issued Tuesday was the first time an appeals court panel had reviewed the special counsel’s authority.

The judges — Karen LeCraft Henderson, Judith W. Rogers and Sri Srinivasan — rejected Miller’s argument that Mueller was named to the post unlawfully. The court said the appointment is valid in part because Mueller is supervised by the attorney general and “effectively serves at the pleasure of an Executive Branch officer” confirmed by the Senate.

“Special Counsel Mueller was properly appointed by a head of Department, who at the time was the Acting Attorney General,” according to the 16-page opinion written by Rogers.

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed Mueller in May 2017 after Trump fired James B. Comey, the FBI director. Rosenstein got involved because then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from matters involving Trump’s presidential campaign.

In court in November, Miller’s lawyer argued that his client should not have to comply with the grand jury subpoenas because the special counsel was named in violation of the appointments clause of the Constitution. Mueller has broad prosecutorial powers with little oversight, Miller’s lawyer said, and should have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate or tapped by the official head of the department.

The special counsel’s team told the court that the office has day-to-day independence but has to report major developments to Justice Department supervisors. Mueller is a so-called inferior officer and was properly appointed by Rosenstein, the office said.

“It is not the case that the special counsel’s office is off wandering in a free-floating environment,” government attorney Michael Dreeben said in court.

The court agreed in its ruling Tuesday that Mueller is an “inferior officer.” Once Rosenstein took over supervision of the campaign-related issues after Sessions’ recusal, the court said he had the authority to appoint Mueller.

Kamenar, Miller’s attorney, has said Stone’s indictment might make Miller’s testimony unnecessary. But he acknowledged that prosecutors might want his client’s testimony as they investigate others.

“He already told the FBI everything he knows in a voluntary, two-hour interview,” Kamenar said. “He was just a former aide to Roger, part time, handling administrative things for him, handling his website, and he did turn over a lot of documents that they asked for from his computer, etc., during the response to the subpoena, so they had all that information, which was essentially not much of anything.”

The case at the D.C. Circuit was argued one day after Trump ousted Sessions as attorney general. The Senate this month confirmed new Attorney General William P. Barr, who will now supervise Mueller.

At his confirmation hearing, Barr told senators he “understands the need for independence and the importance” of protecting Mueller from interference. But he did not commit to releasing the final report generated by the special counsel’s investigation.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...6a6f3ce8199_story.html?utm_term=.5ef3596aed7c
 
Yhdysvaltain teollisuustuotantomittarin eli ismin tarvitsee enään tippua puoliprosenttia eli ollaan pisteen päässä indeksiluvusta 50 jonka alapuolella oltaisiin taantumassa. Jännä nähdä meneekö. On se jännä, yksi mies saa koko maapallon talouden tolaltaan. Pidän hyvin yhtenä mahdollisuutena että keväällä ollaan enään 1 % kasvu-uralla yhdysvalloissa. Kiinan PMI:tä kannattaa nyt seurata tarkkaan. Markkinat ovat kuitenkin veikanneet jopa hieman toisin ostamalla syystalven kräsän joulupyhien aikana sisään.
 
Rannari kirjoitti:
Ans kattoo tuleeko kliimaksia. Todennäköisesti ei.

Tai sen voi tietysti ajatella huiopuhetkeksi kun Trumpin avustajien vankeustuomiot ylittävät yhteensä tuhannen vuoden rajan :D
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Mikäli tuomiot tulevat ennen Trumpin virkakauden päätöstä niin armahdus presidentin toimesta on aika todennäköinen... :D
 
arix kirjoitti:
Mikäli tuomiot tulevat ennen Trumpin virkakauden päätöstä niin armahdus presidentin toimesta on aika todennäköinen... :D
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Siltä osin kuin armahtaminen on mahdollista. Kaikissa tapauksissa ei taida olla?

e... typo
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Michael Cohenin avauspuheenvuoro kongressin komitealle julkaistiin. Cohen mm. kertoo Trumpin tienneen etukäteen Wikileaksin julkaisuista, tienneen etukäteen Trump Towerin tapaamisesta venäläisten kanssa ja rikkoneen kampanjalakeja ollessaan presidenttinä.
A lot of people have asked me about whether Mr. Trump knew about the release of the hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead of time. The answer is yes.

As I earlier stated, Mr. Trump knew from Roger Stone in advance about the WikiLeaks drop of emails.

In July 2016, days before the Democratic convention, I was in Mr. Trump’s office when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone. Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone. Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of “wouldn’t that be great.”
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

As Exhibit 5 to my testimony shows, I am providing a copy of a $35,000 check that President Trump personally signed from his personal bank 14 account on August 1, 2017 – when he was President of the United States – pursuant to the cover-up, which was the basis of my guilty plea, to reimburse me – the word used by Mr. Trump’s TV lawyer -- for the illegal hush money I paid on his behalf. This $35,000 check was one of 11 check installments that was paid throughout the year – while he was President.

The President of the United States thus wrote a personal check for the payment of hush money as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws. You can find the details of that scheme, directed by Mr. Trump, in the pleadings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Sometime in the summer of 2017, I read all over the media that there had been a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 involving Don Jr. and others from the campaign with Russians, including a representative of the Russian government, and an email setting up the meeting with the subject line, “Dirt on Hillary Clinton.” Something clicked in my mind. I remember being in the room with Mr. Trump, probably in early June 2016, when something peculiar happened. Don Jr. came into the room and walked behind his father’s desk – which in itself was unusual. People didn’t just walk behind Mr. Trump’s desk to talk to him. I recalled Don Jr. leaning over to his father and speaking in a low voice, which I could clearly hear, and saying: “The meeting is all set.” I remember Mr. Trump saying, “Ok good…let me know.”

What struck me as I looked back and thought about that exchange between Don Jr. and his father was, first, that Mr. Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Don Jr. had the worst judgment of anyone in the world. And also, that Don Jr. would never set up any meeting of any significance alone – and certainly not without checking with his father. I also knew that nothing went on in Trump world, especially the campaign, without Mr. Trump’s knowledge and approval. So, I concluded that Don Jr. was referring to that June 2016 Trump Tower meeting about dirt on 18 Hillary with the Russian representative when he walked behind his dad’s desk that day -- and that Mr. Trump knew that was the meeting Don Jr. was talking about when he said, “That’s good…let me know.”
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000169-2d31-dc75-affd-bfb99a790001
 
taantumu kirjoitti:
Michael Cohenin avauspuheenvuoro kongressin komitealle julkaistiin. Cohen mm. kertoo Trumpin tienneen etukäteen Wikileaksin julkaisuista, tienneen etukäteen Trump Towerin tapaamisesta venäläisten kanssa ja rikkoneen kampanjalakeja ollessaan presidenttinä.





https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000169-2d31-dc75-affd-bfb99a790001
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000006016175.html

"Kongressiedustajat kuulevat Cohenilta myös siitä, miten Trump ohjeisti vaimentamaan negatiivista julkisuutta liittyen siihen, miksi Trump vältti palveluksen Vietnamin sodassa. Trump ei ollut vastannut Cohenin pyyntöön nähdä lääkärintodistusta liittyen Trumpin väittämään luupiikkiin.

”Kun pyysin lääkärintodistuksia, hän ei niitä antanut ja hän sanoi, ettei mitään leikkausta tehty.– – Hän päätti keskustelun kommentilla: ’Luuletko, että olen typerys, en minä aikonut Vietnamiin lähteä.’”
 
taantumu kirjoitti:
Michael Cohenin avauspuheenvuoro kongressin komitealle julkaistiin.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Ei julkaistu - se vuodettiin. Iso ero. Kannattaa siis muistaa, että tällaisesta vuotomahdollisuudesta huolimatta, minkäänlaista raskauttavaa ei ole Trumpista vuodettu.

Tässä iltasanomien, suomalaiselle yleisölle tarjoiltava versio.

https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000006016200.html?ref=rss

-------

Koko juttu alkaa mennä todella naurettavaksi. Cohen kertoo:


In July 2016, days before the Democratic convention, I was in Mr. Trump’s office when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone. Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone. Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of “wouldn’t that be great.”


Eli heinäkuussa, pari päivää ennen wikileaksin dnc julkaisua, Stone kertoo Trumpille asiasta. Noh... Tämä tietty voi tulla hiukan järkytyksenä monille, mutta niitä julkistuksia mainostettiin Wikileaksin osalta jo hyvissä ajoin.

Guardianin juttu wikileaksin tulevasta julkaisusta - kuukautta ennen Stonea ja Trumpia.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said his organisation is preparing to publish more emails Hillary Clinton sent and received while US secretary of state. (12. päivä kesäkuuta 2016)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...sh-more-hillary-clinton-emails-julian-assange
 
Mutta kun Hillarykin....aina vakiovastaus :D
 
ILoveEU kirjoitti:
Koko juttu alkaa mennä todella naurettavaksi. Cohen kertoo:


In July 2016, days before the Democratic convention, I was in Mr. Trump’s office when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone. Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone. Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of “wouldn’t that be great.”


Eli heinäkuussa, pari päivää ennen wikileaksin dnc julkaisua, Stone kertoo Trumpille asiasta. Noh... Tämä tietty voi tulla hiukan järkytyksenä monille, mutta niitä julkistuksia mainostettiin Wikileaksin osalta jo hyvissä ajoin.

Guardianin juttu wikileaksin tulevasta julkaisusta - kuukautta ennen Stonea ja Trumpia.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said his organisation is preparing to publish more emails Hillary Clinton sent and received while US secretary of state. (12. päivä kesäkuuta 2016)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...sh-more-hillary-clinton-emails-julian-assange
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Assange puhuu Clintonin ulkoministeriöajan sähköposteista ei DNC:n tai Podestan hakkeroiduista sähköposteista. Nuo DNC:n sähköpostit julkaistiin juuri ennen Demokraattien puoluekokousta heinäkuussa 2016.
 
Jos nuo Cohenin lausuntoa koskevat ennakkotiedot ovat kattavia, näyttäisi Cohenin todistuksen ensisijaisena päämääränä olla heittää lokaa Trumpin niskaan. Esim. ennakkoon mainostetut jutut Cohenin tulevan todistamaan "Trumpin rasistisesta kielenkäytöstä" tms. eivät ole oikeastaan mitään muuta kuin jatkumoa demokraattien Trumpin vastaiselle poliittiselle kampanjalle. Sama koskee noita Trumpin Venäjäkytköksiä; kuten @ILoveEU tuossa havaitsi, ei siltäkään rintamalta näyttäisi olevan tiedossa mitään merkittävää.

Cohenin lausunnolla tulee olemaan jotain muutakin kuin poliittis-teatraalista merkitystä lähinnä jos hän kykenee todistmaan Trumpin kiertäneen veroja (siis rikollisin keinoin, ei pelkästään verosuunnittelulla). Cohen itsehän, kuin myös muuten Trumpin ex-kampanjapäällikkö Manafort, ovat liemessä ensisijaisesti nimenomaan veropetoksiin liittyen. Median uutisoinnissa tosin kovasti nämä asianomaisten henkilökohtaiset veropetokset on onnistuttu jättämään taka-alalle, ja keskivertolukija saa helposti mielikuvan, että tuomioissa olisi jotenkin suuressa määrin kyse Trumpista.

Jos Cohenilla olisi todisteita Trumpin veropetoksista, lienisi asia vuotanut julkisuuteen jo aiemmin. Mutta saa nähdä.
 
Sinun täytyy kirjautua vastataksesi.
Back
Top