What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[celedhring]

That Rohrabacher fella has been involved in supporting Catalan separatists, too. I guess he's a Russian asset.

[DGuller]

That Rohrabacher fella has been involved in supporting Catalan separatists, too. I guess he's a Russian asset.

I think it's been an open secret for years.

[The Minsky Moment]

The interesting (but rhetorical) question is why Kelly didn't pass the offer and info onto Trump.
The likely answer is concerning given that Kelly is gone and replaced by a flunky.

[Sheilbh]

Rohrabacher did meet with Assange and it was reported that he did relay such a proposal to then Chief of Staff Kelly, who reportedly did not bring the proposal to Trump but told Rohrabacher to pursue proper channels. 

Sooooo...., it wasn't Trump offered this deal to Assange, but rather that Assange proposed it?

Those are facts that have already been reported, as mentioned in the article. I think Assange's legal team are saying something else, that Rohrabacher went saying he was acting on Trump's instructions and offering a deal. The judge has said this is admissible so we'll see what the evidence is, as I say it could just be a witness statement by Assange which may not be wildly credible. It could be something else.

[HisMajestyBOB]

There are tons of differences.  Bill thought his job was to be president.  He could read and write.  He didn't call everyone who disagreed with him a doo doo head.  He didn't try to put them in jail.  He cared about policy, he cared about America, he cared about the world.  He was capable of speaking without lying.  He balanced the budget.  He didn't look like a giant orange oaf in a fat man suit.  He didn't appoint crooks and thieves and retards to every open position.  He watched shows other than the gorilla channel.  He didn't have a hard on for dictators.  He didn't appoint Chelsea as special envoy to Bosnia.  He didn't fire his entire cabinet every week.

[dps]

Sooooo…., it wasn't Trump offered this deal to Assange, but rather that Assange proposed it?

It seems to me Rohrabacher was the instigator.  He wanted to play free lance international man of mystery and emminense grise fixer, like Nunes in Ukraine.

Yeah, I did some further reading on this, and it sounds like this was some play by Rohrbacher, not Trump or Assange.

Apparently, Rohrbacher was not only claiming that Assange would say that they Russians had no role in leaking the e-mails, but was willing to provide some sort of evidence to that.  The problem with that is that even if we believe what Rohrbacher says (which we little or no reason to do), it doesn't mean that Assange was telling the truth--I strongly doubt that Assange had any such evidence, regardless of what he did or didn't tell Rohrbacher.

[Barrister]

Roger Stone sentenced to 40 months.

Clock starts ticking on when he gets pardoned/commuted.

As I understand it though, a pardon is seen as an admission of guilt, so Stone may yet want to fight this through an appeal (assuming his sentence is stayed pending appeal).

[Razgovory]

I don't think that confessing guilt will be a problem.  He's bragged about other crimes he's committed.

[The Minsky Moment]

For context, Stone's lawyers argued the guidelines sentence was 15-21 months and that the Court should sentence below guidelines at 0.  (i.e. probation only sentence).

Other then the weird twitter episode, this was a not atypical white collar sentence.  The Government argues for a guidelines sentence calculated high, defendants contest the calculation and ask to go below that, the judge agrees with the Government for the most part on the guidelines but gives a somewhat below guidelines sentence somewhere between the two positions.

This would not have come out differently if Trump just STFU.

[Barrister]

For context, Stone's lawyers argued the guidelines sentence was 15-21 months and that the Court should sentence below guidelines at 0.  (i.e. probation only sentence).

Other then the weird twitter episode, this was a not atypical white collar sentence.  The Government argues for a guidelines sentence calculated high, defendants contest the calculation and ask to go below that, the judge agrees with the Government for the most part on the guidelines but gives a somewhat below guidelines sentence somewhere between the two positions.

This would not have come out differently if Trump just STFU.

Twitter is very annoying sometimes, I saw a series of tweets from inside the courthouse.  But think I can find them now?

But anyways, the judge had a series of questions for the government lawyers about who signed and approved the amended sentencing submissions.  It struck me those were all entirely inappropriate questions.  And while it would be inappropriate for Trump to be directing submissions, there's nothing wrong on a high profile case like this from having the substance of submissions being approved of by higher level officials.

[The Minsky Moment]

But anyways, the judge had a series of questions for the government lawyers about who signed and approved the amended sentencing submissions.  It struck me those were all entirely inappropriate question.

The judge has 2 contradictory letters in front of her from the Government.  The second letter says that the first letter doesn't "accurately reflect the DOJ's position".  That was a very odd thing to say because the first letter was submitted under the authority of the United States Attorney for the District Columbia, the person in the district who should have the authority to express the DOJ's position on sentencing for all cases in the District.  It is particularly odd because the second letter is *ALSO* submitted under the very same authority of the same United States Attorney for the District Columbia.  So did the assistants who presumably wrote the first letter not have their bosses' authority to file the letter?  Or did the US attorney forget what his position was?  To add to the confusion, the assistant who actually signed the second letter is standing in front of her.  According to the press report, that lawyer argued for the enhancement but didn't raise the other points in the second letter, i.e. the new guy who signed the second letter seemed to be arguing under the first.  Which raises obvious additional questions about what the Government's position actually is, which if any of the written communications in front of her were authorized and how?

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHAiI1X58w

Trump lays out his argument for pardoning Stone.  Most orange I've seen him in a while.

If you don't want to watch, the jury forewoman is a terrible anti-Trumper, and Stone has a nice family.

I wonder what the setting is, because the applause and laughter sounds a little strained.

[Sheilbh]

It was a speech to Hope for Prisoners, so the audience were mainly ex-cons.

Edit: Hence the laughs at the bad juries line.

Edit: Also "Now I don't know if this is a fact but, ...."

[Admiral Yi]

Mystery solved. 

I can see that little weasel orange brain coming up with the idea that ex-cons would automatically sympathize with anyone convicted of a crime.

[The Minsky Moment]

"They said he lied, but other people lied, too."

I seem to recall someone running as the "LAW AND ORDER" candidate. Maybe he was referencing the TV show?  Some kind of mashup with the Apprentice?

"They" didn't say Stone lied.  A jury of 12, after considering all the evidence including Stone's defense, unanimously convicted him on multiple counts of perjurious testimony, obstruction and witness tampering.  It's bad enough for the self-styled "chief law enforcement officer" of the US to be slandering federal judges.  To attack the integrity of jury verdicts based on an "other people do it" defense is a frontal assault on the system of criminal justice.

This a gangster regime.