Fahrenthold451
Fahrenthold451's JournalTrump is Toast: The shoe just dropped regarding his ties to Russia
Edit:
David Corn just brought the "full shoe rack" contra Trump. Credit to http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2565294
When you finish reading that post you can come back to mine. Or not. I'm a happy man either way.
------------------
FBI is investigating Manafort. That's great news for Hillary but not a kill shot to Trump's campaign. Well, maybe it will be. Let's look into the story further. The quote from NBC first.
The FBI has been conducting a preliminary inquiry into Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort's foreign business connections, law enforcement and intelligence sources told NBC News Monday.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-making-inquiry-ex-trump-campaign-manager-s-foreign-ties-n675881
Yesterday Harry Reid sent his letter to Comey which alleged that Comey knew of Trump and Putin's collaboration. I thought that it was very likely that the Russian story would drop today. And it did.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2562258
My take is that there's been a very interesting dance that has taken place today. Comey is looking for friends, and not finding many. Comey got himself into an impossible situation, legally, ethically and politically. And the pressure was ratcheted up on him massively today.
Here's what I think occurred. Reid sends the letter to Comey, signaling to partisans that it's time to move. The next day it is revealed that Comey didn't want to disclose Russian meddling "for fear it would influence the election." At that moment, Comey is toast if the president wants him to be. The rationale for disclosing the Weiner emails is no longer valid. He arguably has violated the Hatch act, along with his ethical obligations that govern FBI directors. Former prosecutors including Alberto Gonzales are howling. (That's a bad day if Alberto is on your jock about ethics.)
However, Obama being the cool customer he always is, extended an olive branch today. They didn't jump on the anti-Comey bandwagon. They took no position on his Weiner letter. People on the left then freaked out. But I think that what really happened is that Obama signaled to Comey that we can still be buddies, but get the hell out of the way, because the Russian investigation is going to be revealed. And then the shoe dropped.
Look for steady drips of information coming against Trump in the next 48 hours. (A la the server article in Slate)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512564898
Why do I say that Trump is toast? Because the most exciting part of the NBC story is that it references, "Law enforcement and intelligence sources told NBC News Monday." Multiple sources in multiple agencies is GREAT. And guess what "intelligence sources" means? CIA.
By the way, that "bombshell" Brian Ross story is old. I get excited for a microsecond every time I read the headline.
CNBC: Clinton Lead Over Trump Virtually Unchanged Despite FBI News...Game On
HRC +6 Before Comey Letter. HRC +6 After Comey Letter
OK party people. I hate sports analogies but the Comeygate situation merits one. I'll try to make this one ironic.
Our beloved, (and somewhat frail but super capable), franchise quarterback got hit in the nuts very hard by an ignorant and skeezy opponent. It looked for a bit that the nut shot was a MCL tear. Everybody in the stadium went quiet and then there was quite a bit of concerned murmuring. After sitting out a play our leader is back in the game with the score unchanged. Nobody likes getting hit in the nuts, and when it happens it gets your full attention. Game on.
The NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll showed Clinton with a 6-point lead over Trump in the days prior to the Comey news. When looking at the data for Saturday and Sunday only, her lead remained the same — 47 percent to Trump's 41 percent. The poll was conducted online from October 24 through October 30. Questions about Comey's announcement were included on October 29 and October 30.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/clinton-lead-over-trump-virtually-unchanged-despite-fbi-news-poll-says.html
Bill Weld Says Comey Off The Reservation. More Importantly: Cites Monty Python.
Bill Weld, who really needs to drop asshat Gary like a cold, said some helpful things today. He's starting to look like the only clean Marine with credibility left in the election. He truly needs to take stock of his life and decide what is best for the county. So Weld, seriously, endorse Hillary and don't Nader us. Please. Leave Johnson on the ticket alone. He will be fine out there with his jeans/yellow tie look. I doubt he will even miss you. Come on over. The water is fine. If you have concerns about Weld and want to remain pure, I feel you. But come on--he cited the Holy Grail (with mock British accent.) Can he be that bad?
First:
Washington (CNN)Libertarian vice presidential nominee William Weld lit into James Comey, saying Monday that his decision to announce a review of new emails was "disgraceful" and that the FBI director and the agency were "off the reservation."
"They're totally off the reservation," Weld told CNN's Alisyn Camerota Monday on "New Day," adding that the US Attorney General may need to get involved to rein in Comey.
Second: More amusingly, and perhaps more astutely, he compared Trump to acting like the witch-burning, duck weighing mob in Monty Python. No information all accusation. She's a witch! Burn her!"
Weld blasted Trump with a reference to the "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" scene where a mob of villagers lob ridiculous arguments that their victim is a witch.
"Mr. Trump braying about this latest development reminds me of the guy in Monty Python who says 'She's a witch, burn her! Burn her!" Weld said, with a mock British accent. "It has no more content than that. And the point of that skit in Monty Python was that those townspeople were ignorant and stupid -- not that they were great."
https://m.
Link to article
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/bill-weld-comey-reservation-clinton/index.htmll
Here's what Harry Reid REALLY just wrote about Trump and Putin. (It will make you feel better)
There isn't a word on Harry Reid's letter to James Comey that wasn't written, re-parsed, and rewritten. The fact that it was a letter is also important. There's no context to be taken out of. And the words Harry Reid used are extraordinary. They also prove many realities about the current state of affairs.
Here's the money paragraph:
In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government - a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harry-reid-james-comey-clinton_us_58166a08e4b0990edc31d618
There are many many specific allegations and definitive statements in this letter.
1) Reid writes that, "In my communications with you..."
This means Reid is declaring that Comey personally told him or wrote to him
2) "You possess explosive information..."
Meaning that he directly has the actual intel, not source, innuendo or belonging to a third party.
3) "coordination between Donald Trump...and the Russian government"
This means Trump--not Manafort-- (and coordination with a hostile government is damn close to treasonous). And the word Reid used is "government" not Russian "interests" or "actors." This means Trump and Putin ("Putin" meaning his government.)
4) "I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released..."
Means that Comey had reason to know that the shoe could drop contra Trump at any moment.
5) "There is no danger to American interests from releasing it."
It's NOT classified! Reid would not have asked Comey to release it if it were classified and he certainly wouldn't be referencing it in an open letter. That would be illegal.
This letter that Reid disclosed is one of the most amazing political documents I have ever seen. The allegations are incredible and don't let the media tell you that they are cryptic. Reid flat out is alleging that he spoke to Comey and Comey related to him that Trump was working with Putin's government. This allegation is specific and intentional on Reid's part. At this point we don't have to speculate or wonder what the allegation is and Reid would NEVER put such an allegation in writing if it were not true and if Reid could not prove it. His lawyers would never let him write it.
So why did Reid write this letter and distribute it? Did he write it to compel Comey to disclose it. No, of course not. This story is juuuuuust about to leak. After the story drops the press will find out that Comey told Reid. The Dems will be pissed that Reid kept it a secret so long. Reid is getting ahead of it and blaming Comey. That letter Reid previoulsy sent Comey months ago? That was a CYA letter as well.
Expect the story of Trump/Putin collaboration to drop soon. Reid is just clearing the field for himself. No other explanation makes sense.
Except....If I'm wrong and it doesn't come out, it's safe to say that the FBI is effectively staging something akin to a coup and the powers that be are going along with it. This information about Trump's Russian ties is real--as is the danger to our Republic.
Democrats Net +8 More Likely To Support HRC Following Comey Letter Debacle: CBS
Here's how Clinton could lose the election. She does something akin to the Access Hollywood tape that drives people in her camp away from her to vote for Trump. I've been waiting with baited breath to see the first opinion polls after Comeygate. The news is good for Clinton. This "scandal" has been correctly assessed by the voting public. Only 5% of Dems are now less likely to support her whereas 13% are more likely. My guess is that the 5% will come around once more information is revealed about Comey's unprecedented and unsanctioned maneuvering. Hillary gets a net +8. This is not her Waterloo.
There's an excellent article by David Rothschild from Predictwise that cites this concept.
Clinton is far enough up, and there are few enough persuadable voters, that she will need to lose support for Trump to win
http://predictwise.com/blog/2016/10/comeyfbi-scandal/
What Comey tried to pull was as close to a unilateral coup d'etat as you are going to see in the modern era. If this doesn't energize left leaners then we are doomed anyway. Early voting looks good across the states that matter and after looking at the CBS numbers, we can officially breathe again.
Rothschild also cites the Dan Rather's George W Bush National Guard story as a historical example. That worked out just fine in the end for Bush. Like Rather, Comey will start facing the immediate and harsh blowback. The difference being that this time Comey deserves it. The Democrats will benefit from a more energized base.
The prediction markets bear this out, just a little normal tightening that you would expect in any presidential race. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/us_presidential_election_live_betting_odds.html
The CBS poll.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-battleground-poll-partisans-divide-on-news-of-fbi-emails/
Trump absolutely 100% broke the self dealing rules for his foundation
Trump is no tax genius, because he broke the rules regarding direct self dealing. It's right in Fahrenthold's article. So bear with me and let's just think about this...
Self Dealing Defined:
IRC 4941(d) provides that the following transactions are generally considered acts of self-dealing between a private foundation and a disqualified person: E: Transferring foundation income or assets to, or for the use by or
benefit of, a disqualified person
So in English a charitable foundation can't buy you stuff if you are a substantial contributor. Which Trump is.
A disqualified person is: A substantial contributor to the foundation (as defined in IRC 507(d)(2));
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicq85.pdf
So we can agree there's no question that Trump is a disqualified person and cannot receive any personal benefit from the Foundation. In the WaPo story there are numerous examples of how Trump benefitted, but many of those benefits are "indirect." Some of these indirect benefits, like fixing the fountain in a public space that indirectly help his property values are tolerated by the IRS. They're super skeezy and the kind of thing done by irredeemable people, but allowed. However, there are smaller transactions listed and as with everything in the law, the devil is in the small details.
Then he used $100 of the foundation’s money to buy a two-person membership to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-boasts-of-his-philanthropy-but-his-giving-falls-short-of-his-words/2016/10/29/b3c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_campaign=pubexchange&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com
Whoops. That ain't legal Mr. Trump. Here's what the IRS has to say about that.
Membership dues and fees, by their very nature, are usually paid by individuals on a continuing basis. When dues are paid by a private foundation on behalf of a disqualified person, it may be presumed that the disqualified person is being relieved of the obligation, whether or not legally enforceable, to make such payment. The benefit conferred on the individual is not incidental or tenuous, but is direct and economic in nature. Accordingly, Rev. Rul. 77-160, 1977-1 C.B. 351, holds that the payment of membership dues by a private foundation on behalf of a disqualified person is an act of self-dealing under IRC 4941(d)(1)(E).
And here's the point. Agents at the IRS and courts have burned a lot of calories on these rules. You can't just say, "Pssssssh, it's just $100. What's the big deal." Well, the big deal is IRC 4941(d)(1)(E). IT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE IRS CODE. There doesn't seem to be a "nominal direct dealing exception." Meaning that if the foundation gives a disqualified person $100 thats not legal.
This is akin to the bank teller who was caught taking $20 out of the drawer. The bank isn't going to die with that loss. But can the teller say, "It's only $20?" Hell no. The bank would analyze every one of the teller's transactions and you can believe that there would be legal consequence.
At some point, willful direct self dealing becomes criminal if it is implemented as a fraudulent tax avoidance scheme. How can we be so sure Trump's tax returns are clean? Gotta see the returns.
He might brag about how much of a tax genius he is, but the limited information available to us shows he ain't.
Fahrenthold to the rescue: My hero drops the first negative story on Trump post Comey-Updated
Update******
Yesterday I commented that charitable self-dealing may be part of the oppo drop. It's right in Fahrenthold's article. So bear with me and let's just think about this...
Self Dealing Defined:
IRC 4941(d) provides that the following transactions are generally considered acts of self-dealing between a private foundation and a disqualified person: E: Transferring foundation income or assets to, or for the use by or
benefit of, a disqualified person
A disqualified person is: A substantial contributor to the foundation (as defined in IRC 507(d)(2));
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicq85.pdf
No question that Trump is a disqualified person and cannot receive any personal benefit from the Foundation. In the WaPo story there are numerous examples of how Trump benefitted, but many of those benefits are "indirect." Some of these indirect benefits, like fixing the fountain in a public space that indirectly help his property values are tolerated by the IRS. They're super skeezy and the kind of thing done by irredeemable people, but allowed. However, there are smaller transactions listed, as with everything in the law, the devil is in the small details.
Then he used $100 of the foundation’s money to buy a two-person membership to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Whoops. That ain't legal Mr. Trump. Here's what the IRS has to say about that.
Membership dues and fees, by their very nature, are usually paid by individuals on a continuing basis. When dues are paid by a private foundation on behalf of a disqualified person, it may be presumed that the disqualified person is being relieved of the obligation, whether or not legally enforceable, to make such payment. The benefit conferred on the individual is not incidental or tenuous, but is direct and economic in nature. Accordingly, Rev. Rul. 77-160, 1977-1 C.B. 351, holds that the payment of membership dues by a private foundation on behalf of a disqualified person is an act of self-dealing under IRC 4941(d)(1)(E).
And here's the point. Agents at the IRS and courts have burned a lot of calories on these rules. You can't just say, "Pssssssh, it's just $100. What's the big deal." Well, the big deal is IRC 4941(d)(1)(E). IT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE IRS CODE. There doesn't seem to be a "nominal direct dealing exception." Meaning that if the foundation gives a disqualified person $100 thats not LEGAL.
This is akin to the bank teller who was caught taking $20 out of the drawer. The bank isn't going to die with that loss. But do you stop there? Hell no. The bank would analyze every one of the teller's transactions and you can believe that there would be legal consequence.
At some point, willful direct self dealing becomes illegal if it is implemented in a fraudulent way in an attempt to avoid personal tax liabilities. How can we be so sure Trump's tax returns are clean? Gotta see the returns.
He might brag about how much of a tax genius he is, but the limited information available to us shows he ain't.
Original Post--------
So Trump shows up at a charity event uninvited and sits down in an empty chair on the stage. Nobody knows what to do so they allow it to happen. He leaves without making a donation. And my hero (Mr. Fahrenthold) has a nice video that sums it all up.
This, while seemingly a minor deal, is actually an excellent story for Clinton. It makes Trump look like a liar. It makes Trump look poor. It reignites the tax return issue (because don't we all want to know how charitable he is now?) Finally, it puts Trump in a category where he belongs. This is a loser move. We all know people who show up at events uninvited and/or who try to steal honor. They are called losers.
Hopefully this is the first in a long string of Trump stories that will start to percolate in the post-Comey vigilante era. I predict at least something else today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-boasts-of-his-philanthropy-but-his-giving-falls-short-of-his-words/2016/10/29/b3c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpcharity-3pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
My apologies to those who I offended with my earlier pro-Tesla post. I was quite honestly losing my mind that there hadn't been a negative Trump story injected into this news cycle. I had to think of something else, but like any trial attorney I should know my audience. Irrespective of my intention, I was, in fact, extremely careless. These are difficult times. I've deleted it, scrubbed my server clean, and I fully appleagize. (sic)_
In case anybody didn't see this: 2.9% growth.
There was exceptionally good news for team HRC today, believe it or not.
The U.S. economy expanded at a 2.9% annual rate from July through September compared with the same time a year ago -- the fastest economic growth in two years.
Higher than the expected 2.6%. Also, look for good job numbers which are due to be released on November 4. The email BS is all baked into the polling. The economy matters to people. There isn't a person on the planet who isn't aware of Clinton's server issues. The markets tanked today at the mere thought bubble of Trump becoming president. People pay attention to their money and generally they want steady growth and economic stability. HRC represents that.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/28/news/economy/us-economic-growth-gdp-third-quarter/index.html
I'm a criminal defense attorney, let me tell you why Comey did this. (You'll feel better)
***Update***
La Times has the best characterization of why Comey did what he did, and it is consistent with my original post below. There's nothing there, he's simply covering his butt.
The emails were not to or from Clinton, and contained information that appeared to be more of what agents had already uncovered, the official said, but in an abundance of caution, they felt they needed to further scrutinize them.
Because Comey had told Congress that the FBI had finished investigating Clinton’s server, he felt he needed to let lawmakers know that agents were looking into the case again in light of the recent discovery, the official said.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-fbi-clinton-email-probe-20161028-story.html
The way the press initially handled this story is unforgivable.
----------
Original Post:
Comey knows that Hillary is going to win the election. He knows that Rs in the House will very likely rake him over the coals in endless Benghazi like hearings. Comey testified under oath to Congress that he would reopen--or at a minimum reconsider--the investigation should he get additional information. He also testified that if there is a referral from Congress regarding Clinton's untruthful disclosure to FBI that he could open an investigation vis her FBI interview.
Somebody in the know dropped some emails in the FBIs lap recently. (Was it merely a routine disclosure from the Weiner investigation? Maybe, but I'm not buying it. The timing of all this makes me believe that this was not just an innocent 11th hour discovery.)
This puts Comey in a box. He testified under oath that he would relook at things if more information comes to light--so basically he's in legal trouble (perjury allegation) if he doesn't. This is confirmed by Comey's own memo to FBI employees.
Comey said he felt “an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-james-b-comey-under-fire-for-his-controversial-decision-on-the-clinton-email-inquiry/2016/10/28/fbad009c-9d57-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_comey-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Further, if he didn't send the letter he sent today, he would be accused of political collusion with the Clintons. He's covering his ass. Plain and simple. He has bristled at the allegation that he is acting in a partisan way, and this (nothing-burger) letter is his attempt to get back to some type of perceived neutrality in advance of his anticipated testimony to Congress. Imagine if he didn't send the letter. You can just see Gowdy screaming at him, "So you had these additional emails and you kept them a secret until AFTER the election!"
My legal advice to people here is to take a deep breath. This letter is classic CYA. It's designed to protect Comey, and that's it. If he had the goods on Clinton the shoe would have dropped today. Mark Cuban's explanation that Huma was simply printing emails for HRC bears this out. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512552937
PS, watch for any and all oppo that the Clintons have to be released today and tomorrow in advance of the Sunday shows. Anything they have on Trump will come out now. The best defense is a good offense. Let's all strap in and kick this orange bastard's corpulent ass.
Couple people have asked about what the oppo probably is. Here's my best speculative shot..
Absolutely no way someone as careless as Donald Trump has not been surreptitiously audio recorded. In the modern era, everybody has a smart phone. Odds are its an attractive contract vendor who was not required to sign a non-disclosure contract. You can guess what would be in the recording.
Is that legal, you ask? New York's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. New York makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05. So, while I'm not licensed in New York, if the party recording was in the room, the answer is pretty much it looks to be legal.
The person with the recording has probably already consulted with an attorney, found out that it wasn't illegal to make the tape, and they are ready to drop it. Now's the time my friend. The address to the Washington Post is --- The Washington Post, 1301 K Street NW, Washington DC 20071
PPS: Still don't feel better? Take a look at the prediction markets hours after the story dropped. http://predictwise.com/
We're gonna be fine people. We are on the right side of history.
Quick CYA footnote: A person could read this and think that I'm apologizing for Comey. I'm not. What he has done is despicable and unforgivable. At the time I originally posted this all I knew was the letter Comey wrote and that's that. People were freaking out about the (now debunked) reporting that Comey had "reopened" the investigation. I originally wrote my post because I knew that Comey felt he had legal exposure due to his prior congressional testimony and this was not the opening act of a criminal charge contra Clinton. I thought this might make people feel better.
My speculation regarding oppo was noted as speculation. I'm a hard core partisan Democrat. I can have hopes too, no?
AP: Early voting: More good signs for Clinton in key states
This is the kind of great story that cuts through all the polling noise. AP just posted an article about early voting in key swing states. Here are the early voting data points and they are substantially more valuable than any Rasmussen landline poll.
Synopsis: Dems caught up with Rs in Fla--much faster than in 2012. In Nevada, Democrats lead in returned ballots, 46 percent to 35 percent. Colorado Dems lead 40 to 34. (which is ridiculous if you look at 2012) Texas showing a 46% increase in early voting (which is likely due to increased Latino turnout.)
These numbers are awesome and they are, without question, the reason why I haven't jumped off a bridge after watching CNN.
https://www.apnews.com/ea0839d90c4048d38a49d78f4470509c/Early-voting:-More-good-signs-for-Clinton-in-key-states
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Oct 17, 2016, 01:48 PMNumber of posts: 436
