Michael Cohen’s Business Partner Agrees to Cooperate as Part of Plea Deal

They got this guy facing 100 years in jail…in the state of New York. So as part of a plea deal, he will talk about Michael Cohen.

This is New York attorney general’s office. So Trump cannot pardon him. The man is a Russian immigrant, and he’s screwed for life, but can get a deal if he spills about Trump’s personal attorney. And Cohen has told his friends he can’t take much more. Evgeny A. Freidman is about to squeeze Cohen a little bit harder.

I’m telling you.

waterfield wrote:

Well Z I sooooo hope you are right. However, my faith in the American public is at a low level today. IMO there are three major forces that support this idiot. 1) Business ( he is doing what he promised -getting rid of all the “political correct” regulations, and putting more money in their pockets, etc. ) 2 ignorant people. Those are people either too stupid or smart but not interested in how the government actually runs (i.e. how does a bill become law) 3) Racists and bigots who like the way the guy talks (i.e. he talks like they do) We need a sea change in how people “think”. That may take more than your one year. I only wish we had the same Republicans in office that we had during Nixon. Instead we now have the Freedom Caucus who run the party. The real question is how did they get there. I blame TV reality shows and video games. We are a society with no attention span to speak of.

Okay, consider this: Trump has already rolled back every regulation he could easily get his hands on, and the tax ripoff has already passed. So business interests have already got a fair bit of what they wanted. Furthermore, there’s plenty of reason to believe that Pence would carry on with the Great American Ripoff. Secondly, Trump screwed Boeing out of billions by tearing up the Iran deal. He screwed soybean farmers, and one other farm product (I forget which) by pissing off Mexico. He does reckless, dumb shit, too, and business isn’t a fan of recklessness and lost business.

As far as his base…yeah…they are going to be unwavering in their support, probably. But as zn points out, they are a minority. Trump won, but he didn’t win a majority. So he took office with minority support in the country in the first place, and that support has already eroded, and will erode further when it becomes apparent that the corruption is not Fake News after all.

Moreover, Trump is a bad fit for the evangelical types in Congress. The Republicans have already split on some important issues – like ACA, for example – and recently over immigration. The evangelical types have been embracing Trump, but deep down, that has to be an uneasy allegiance. They would prefer Pence. Pence is all in favor of bringing Christ’s kingdom to reign in Washington DC. Some of those people will flip.

Remember…it won’t take much. It won’t take winning over all of them. It will take just a few.

As far as changing the way people think…well…we would need a party with the brass to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and then give it 30 years. The FOX and Limbaugh/Savage/Beck/Jones people are completely hopeless, imo.

So there was no working link in what I posted? or just the image didn’t work? Your image works as a link for me. I don’t understand the problem.

waterfield wrote:

I think your wrong on this. The President and his supporters are ONLY concerned about public opinion. The only reason Nixon was forced to leave was because the public knew everything from the tapes and overwhelmingly wanted him out of office. Moreover, Congress was in the hands of the Democrats. The leaders of the GOP new that given public opinion if Nixon was impeached he would be convicted. it was the Republicans who convinced Nixon he had to resign. In Trump’s case both the house and senate are controlled by the Republicans. If they don’t sense a public outrage they are not likely to take the initial step (impeachment) in getting rid of Trump. From a criminal stanpoint, there is a serious legal issue of rather a sitting President can even be indicted- Finally, “collusion” is not a crime and he can only be indicted based on a federal criminal statute. Thus the only practical solution is through the polls-i.e. taking congress back and voting him out of office. Public opinion means everything.

That’s what I’ve been thinking all along, too, W. In the past couple of weeks, I have been shifting my view, and now I think Trump is done within a year.

This is not relevant, per se, but I think a lot of us are taking the dismal view because we’ve been disappointed at the never-ending parade of horror never seeming to find purchase. For the life of me, I don’t know how it didn’t end when he mocked the disabled reporter. Then the pussy tape. Etc. The guy has had so many scandals, we are all punch drunk. Any one of these would have been the defining scandal of any president’s tenure that preceded him.

That aside, Mueller has been very careful and thorough in this investigation. He knows more than we know, and we know a lot. He is going to leverage people, and he is going to be smart about how he processes this.

But be certain of this: crimes have been committed. Several have been indicted already. The political climate will change as more people are indicted especially if trials start taking place. Saying there is no stomach for it now is fine. Yeah. Today. Now. There isn’t enough to roll Trump. But I am convinced now it is a matter of time.

As for whether he can be indicted or not…the question has not been decided one way or the other. There is a defined process for impeachment, but there is no precedent for criminal proceedings. I’m sure Trump will argue it, and it will go to the Supreme Court, but I don’t think he will make it that far. That’s my guess. But…especially if congress turns blue in November, Republicans are going to be scared about 2020. They will throw him overboard and regroup behind Pence who probably gives them their best chance at the White House anyway.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

And here is a WaPo article that came out a couple of days ago giving more detail about the intelligence source Nunes tried to get information on from the Justice Dept.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-fbi-source-for-russia-investigation-met-with-three-trump-advisers-during-campaign/2018/05/18/9778d9f0-5aea-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on&pwa=true&utm_term=.155af5e4c464

I can’t read that without access. I suppose I could get access, but not today. As a favor, if anyone does have access to the Washington Post, could you copy that here? Thanks.

…

So…I run out of articles by about the 5th of each month. But I discovered that I can work around that by copying the link, and opening it in an Incognito browser. I use Chrome now because at my job, we all are using Google for everything. I am sure all the other browsers have the equivalent of Incognito, though. So just Right Click on the address, and open it in your anonymous browser, and read all the articles you want.

Politics
Secret FBI source for Russia investigation met with three Trump advisers during campaign

By Robert Costa, Carol D. Leonnig, Tom Hamburger and Devlin Barrett May 18 Email the author
In mid-July 2016, a retired American professor approached an adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign at a symposium about the White House race held at a British university.

The professor took the opportunity to strike up a conversation with Carter Page, whom Trump had named a few months earlier as a foreign policy adviser.

But the professor was more than an academic interested in American politics — he was a longtime U.S. intelligence source. And, at some point in 2016, he began working as a secret informant for the FBI as it investigated Russia’s interference in the campaign, according to people familiar with his activities.

The role played by the source is now at the center of a battle that has pitted President Trump against his own Justice Department and fueled the president’s attacks on the special counsel’s investigation. In a Thursday tweet, he called the probe “a disgusting, illegal and unwarranted Witch Hunt.”

In recent days, Trump and his allies have escalated their claims that the FBI source improperly spied on the campaign.

“Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president,” he tweeted Friday. “It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a ‘hot’ Fake News story. If true — all time biggest political scandal!”

There is no evidence to suggest someone was planted with the campaign. The source in question engaged in a months-long pattern of seeking out and meeting three different Trump campaign officials.

The Washington Post — after speaking with people familiar with his role — has confirmed the identity of the FBI source who assisted the investigation, but is not reporting his name following warnings from U.S. intelligence officials that exposing him could endanger him or his contacts.

The source declined multiple requests for comment. An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment.

Page was one of three Trump advisers whom the FBI informant contacted in the summer and fall of 2016 for brief talks and meetings that largely centered on foreign policy, according to people familiar with the encounters.

“There has been some speculation that he might have tried to reel me in,” Page, who had numerous encounters with the informant, told The Post in an interview. “At the time, I never had any such impression.”

In late summer, the professor met with Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis for coffee in Northern Virginia, offering to provide foreign-policy expertise to the Trump effort. In September, he reached out to George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign-policy adviser for the campaign, inviting him to London to work on a research paper.

Many questions about the informant’s role in the Russia investigation remain unanswered. It is unclear how he first became involved in the case, the extent of the information he provided and the actions he took to obtain intelligence for the FBI. It is also unknown whether his July 2016 interaction with Page was brokered by the FBI or another intelligence agency.

The FBI commonly uses sources and informants to gather evidence and its regulations allow for use of informants even before a formal investigation has been opened. In many law enforcement investigations, the use of sources and informants precedes more invasive techniques such as electronic surveillance.

Earlier this month, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) issued a subpoena to the Justice Department for all documents related to the FBI informant. Justice Department officials have declined to provide the information, warning that exposing him could have severe consequences.

In a May 2 meeting, senior FBI and national intelligence officials warned the White House that information being sought by Nunes risked the source’s safety and that of his sources, and could damage U.S. relationships with its intelligence partners.

The stakes are so high that the FBI has been working over the past two weeks to mitigate the potential damage if the source’s identity were revealed, according to several people familiar with the matter. The bureau took steps to protect other live investigations that he has worked on and sought to lessen any danger to associates if his identity became known, said these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence operations.

For years, the professor has provided information to the FBI and the CIA, according to people familiar with the matter. He aided the Russia investigation both before and after special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s appointment in May 2017, according to people with knowledge of his activities.

Exactly when the professor began working on the case is unknown.

The FBI formally opened its counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 campaign on July 31, 2016, spurred by a report from Australian officials that Papadopoulos boasted to an Australian diplomat of knowing that Russia had damaging material about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

The professor’s interactions with Trump advisers began a few weeks before the opening of the investigation, when Page met the professor at the British symposium.

Page recalled his conversation with the professor as pleasant, if not particularly memorable. It was the first interaction they ever had, he said.

The conference was held days after Page had traveled to Russia, where he had delivered a speech at Moscow’s New Economic School that publicly criticized U.S. foreign policy.

Page had been on the FBI’s radar since at least 2013, when the FBI caught two accused Russian spies on a wiretap discussing their attempts to recruit him. Later in 2016, Page became a surveillance target of the FBI, which suspected him of acting on behalf of the Russian government — an assertion he denies. Page has accused the government of abusing its authority by unfairly targeting him.

Page and the FBI informant stayed in touch after the conference, meeting several times in the Washington area, Page said. Page said he did not recall exactly what the two men discussed.

“You are asking me about conversations I had almost two years ago,” he said. “We had extensive discussions. We talked about a bunch of different foreign-policy-related topics. For me to try and remember every nuance of every conversation is impossible.”

In late August 2016, the professor reached out to Clovis, asking if they could meet somewhere in the Washington area, according to Clovis’s attorney, Victoria Toensing.

“He said he wanted to be helpful to the campaign” and lend the Trump team his foreign-policy experience, Toensing said.

Clovis, an Iowa political figure and former Air Force officer, met the source and chatted briefly with him over coffee, on either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, at a hotel cafe in Crystal City, she said. Most of the discussion involved him asking Clovis his views on China.

“It was two academics discussing China,” Toensing said. “Russia never came up.”

The professor asked Clovis if they could meet again, but Clovis was too busy with the campaign. After the election, the professor sent him a note of congratulations, Toensing said.

Clovis did not view the interactions as suspicious at the time, Toensing said, but now is unsettled that the professor never mentioned his contacts with other Trump aides.

Days later, on Sept. 2, 2016, the professor reached out to a third Trump aide, emailing Papadopoulos.

People familiar with his outreach to Papadopoulos said it was done as part of the FBI’s investigation. The young foreign-policy adviser had been on the radar of the FBI since the summer, and inside the campaign had been pushing Trump and his aides to meet with Russian officials.

[Trump campaign emails show aide’s repeated efforts to set up Russia meetings]

“Please pardon my sudden intrusion just before the Labor Day weekend,” the professor wrote to Papadopoulos in a message described to The Post.

He said he was leading a project examining relations between Turkey and the European Union. He offered to pay Papadopoulos $3,000 to write a paper about the oil fields off the coast of Turkey, Israel and Cyprus, “a topic on which you are a recognized expert.”

It is a long-standing practice of intelligence operatives to try to develop a source by first offering the target money for innocuous research or writing.

The professor invited Papadopoulos to come to London later that month to discuss the paper, offering to pay the costs of his travel. “I understand that this is rather sudden but thought given your expertise, it might be of interest to you,” he wrote.

Papadopoulos accepted. While in London, he met for drinks with a woman who identified herself as the professor’s assistant, before meeting on Sept. 15 with the professor at the Traveler’s Club, a 200-year-old private club that is a favorite of foreign diplomats stationed in London, according to the emails described to The Post.

After Papadopoulos returned to the United States and sent his research document, the professor responded: “Enjoyed your paper. Just what we wanted. $3,000 wired to your account. Pls confirm receipt.”

Alice Crites, Shane Harris, Rosalind S. Helderman, Ellen Nakashima and Matt Zapotosky contributed to this report.

Sullivan, btw, is one of several conservative writers who blame the fact that they voted for Trump on liberals who were just too obnoxious about Trump that they had no choice in the matter.

wv wrote:

Well before we even get to the changed landscape between now and the 70’s — there’s the issue of THE TAPES. Nixon taped himself doing all this shit. Without that unique dynamic, Nixon would have stonewalled and survived.

But as to the video — 70 percent of Americans trusted the MSM back in the 70s. Was that a ‘good‘ thing? Good ole days of trusting the corporate media?

I agree with the commentator that things are a dumpster-fire now. And i agree that things have changed with the rise of the rightwing-lie-machine.

But things were not good in the olden days either. It was a different kind of dumpster-fire back in the 50’s, 60s, and 70s, etc. Back then i was listening to TV-MSM and i was being mislead every night. (Now, with the internet I have at least a small chance of finding my way toward the light.)

I think the vid makes some good points about the change, but where I’d disagree is that he kinda tries to make the case that the MSM was more truthful back in the 70’s — because there was hardly any rightwing media. But i think the MSM has always been in the pocket of the Corps, as Chomsky talked about in the 80’s in Manufacturing Consent. Its just that now we have the Right-MSM lying to us from the right, and the Dem-MSM lying to us from the ‘left’. What do we do with that?

Its also been my experience that Tucker Carlson (wacko that he is) is sometimes way more insightful on some issues than the Dem-MSM. On Syria for example. What to do with ‘that’ ?

To me the voters are staggering toward catastrophe because they DO trust EITHER Fox OR NPR/MSNBC. They ought look at both behemoths as Factories-Of-Lies. But they trust one or the other. They ‘say’ they dont trust the MSM but they do — they trust one of the lie-machines. Or the other.

Used to be we had one lie machine. Now we have two. So yes, things have changed.

Just my opin-yun. Call me Mary Sunshine.

w
v

Yeah, that went through my mind, too, after I watched the video. But upon reflection, I think the 60s and 70s journalism was better because – although it was limited by cultural assumptions, the 5 filters – there was at least a value placed on “objective journalism.” So while it wasn’t objective in a leftist perspective, there was at least some honesty on the part of the journalists, and hence, some ability to engage in discussion.

Journalism today – particularly FOX and the entire right wing radio and internet subculture – deliberately lies. I’m sure many of those people have rationalized their lying as being in the “best interest” of the country, or whatever, but now we have a tremendous portion of the news landscape that has crossed over into blatant, conscious propaganda. That’s worse than unconscious propaganda, imo. Before now, journalists were the victims of propaganda. Now they are the architects of propaganda. That’s worse.

But that’s not the main point of the video, anyway. I think the point is that Nixon was impeachable because there was a majority of public consensus within the public that he had crossed the line, and that there was a political expediency to impeaching him. Now because the Republican base literally believes that Trump is doing a great job, and believes that this entire investigation is nothing but Democrat dirty politics with no merit whatsoever, the Republicans have no need to respond to it. Republicans are so completely misinformed that there is no political cost to publicly supporting a grossly incompetent politician who is certainly violating ethics standards and probably guilty of numerous crimes, as well as terrible errors in policy. I mean…his base believes he’s great and that Obama’s presidency was the Dark Ages. So when they see libruls going apoplectic at Trump all the time, they just laugh and feel empowered.