Mar-A-Lago Raid

[SilentPony]

Judge says he's inclined to unseal part of Trump search warrant affidavit

U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart ordered the Justice Department to file a redacted version of the affidavit by next Thursday, and told prosecutors to be prepared to explain the rationale behind those redactions.

www.yahoo.com

It'll be interesting to see if any witnesses are named. Who's got money on Ivanka?! After the whole "Jared Kushner selling secrets to the Saudis" thing, wouldn't shock me if Trump would throw him under the bus for Maralago, and Ivanka is moving to protect him from Trump.

 

[tstorm823]

It did happen. It was illegal. It was proven.

If your understanding of the events changed at no point during the investigation into that event, that just means you are so content with the consequences of your initial opinion that you do not care if the truth contradicts them.

It went on to have a significant role in later proceedings.

Meaningless proceedings that lead to nothing.

It's amazing that you can just assume we'd credit your opinion over that of the Government Accountability Office and the House Intelligence Committee.

Step one: ignore Adam Schiff. You should be able to figure that out on your own.
Step two: the GAO. First, here is the report by the GAO claiming it's illegal.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-331564.pdf

Note, the stated reason the funding was not being released yet was:
“Amounts apportioned, but not yet obligated as of the date of this reapportionment, for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (Initiative) are not available for obligation until August 5, 2019, to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds. Based on OMB’s communication with DOD on July 25, 2019, OMB understands from the Department that this brief pause in obligations will not preclude DOD’s timely execution of the final policy direction. DOD may continue its planning and casework for the Initiative during this period.”

The text of the bill in question:

" Sec. 9013. For the ``Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative'',
$250,000,000 is hereby appropriated, to remain available until September
30, 2019: Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary
of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide
assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics
support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to
the military and national security forces of Ukraine, and for
replacement of any weapons or articles provided to the Government of
Ukraine from the inventory of the United States: Provided further, That
of the amounts made available in this section, $50,000,000 shall be available only for lethal assistance
described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1250(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92; 129
Stat. 1068): Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not
less than 15 days prior to obligating funds provided under this heading,
notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the details of
any such obligation..."

The bill that appropriated the funds put the specific details of fulfillment in the hands of the executive branch. The stated reason for the pause was effectively "we're still figuring out the details of how we're gonna use this money". It is reasonable, given a major change in Ukrainian political leadership, to have a vague or changing idea of what the most appropriate use of funds were. The DoD had a plan in mind before the Ukrainian elections, it's perfectly reasonable to reconsider the usage afterwards. The GAO somehow reached the conclusion that they couldn't defer the usage the way they did even though the bill specified September 15th as the deadline for determining the specifics and September 30th as the last possible date of release, and that the wrong thing they did was determining the specifics of the fund usage, which the law specifically tasked them with, because was an illegal insertion of policy into the use of appropriated funds.

At best, that is some high level gobbledygook. But you can judge for yourself.

 

[Silvanus]

The bill that appropriated the funds put the specific details of fulfillment in the hands of the executive branch.

"Specific details" usually don't entail whether or not to give it. They were Congressionally allocated funds.

The stated reason for the pause was effectively "we're still figuring out the details of how we're gonna use this money".

Yes, often underhanded or unethical actions are accompanied by excuses. That's step one. You're not supposed to uncritically believe and repeat them.

At best, that is some high level gobbledygook. But you can judge for yourself.

Mostly, I've judged from experience that you're willing to excuse or downplay almost anything if it comes from a Republican, regardless of how much brazen disregard they show for supposedly 'conservative' values.

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

The apportionment authority is supposed to be used to ensure the effective expenditure of congressionally appropriated funding, not to extort a foreign power to advance the personal interests of the president..

This withholding was also an illegal deferral, because it prevented the Defense Department from spending the funding before it expired. By the middle of September, when Trump finally released the aid, it was too late and the Pentagon was unable to spend all the funding by the end of the fiscal year.

DoD acknowledged this fact when it “alerted Congress that it would not be able to spend all of the money by September 30.” Congress was forced to reappropriate the remaining funding so it could be spent the next year. While this allowed the Pentagon to spend all of the money, it did not eliminate the legal violation that occurred when the Trump administration illegally deferred the spending in the first place.

Even defenders of Trump’s actions have not provided a legally viable reason for withholding the funding. They have argued that Trump withheld the funding because of broad concerns about corruption in Ukraine or that the EU was not providing sufficient support to Ukraine. Neither of these claims holds up under examination. But even if they were the actual reasons for the hold, Trump’s actions would still be illegal.

Deferrals are only allowed to (1) to provide for contingencies; (2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or (3) as specifically provided by law. Neither generalized concerns about corruption in Ukraine nor concerns about E.U. support for Ukraine provide legal justification for a deferral of the funding.

Seriously you've already lost this one. Your beliefs are wrong. It was illegal. It was proven.

 

[Agema]

Uh no. You being a cultist for Trump doesn't make reality change. It did happen. It was illegal. It was proven. You believing otherwise is kinda irrelevant because reality doesn't care about your beliefs.

Amazing as it may seem, Tstorm is still pumping this weird exculpatory fantasy for Trump he dreamt up years ago.

Even in his little delusional version of events, it's an utter shitshow of mangled, inappropriate procedure, bypassing proper channels, ignoring key decision-making principles and extraordinarily poor judgement, on a matter of high sensitivity.

There's a good reason a whole bunch of government staffers in the State and Security apparatus - including John fucking Bolton - were ringing alarm bells or opining this was going to go horribly wrong. Which he thinks he can just ignore as long as he shouts "But Adam Schiff!" a lot.

 

[tstorm823]

Even in his little delusional version of events, it's an utter shitshow of mangled, inappropriate procedure, bypassing proper channels, ignoring key decision-making principles and extraordinarily poor judgement, on a matter of high sensitivity.

Yes, and if you actually think about it, you know that makes it the most likely explanation. You understand generally that Trump is personally irresponsible and says whatever pops into his head, and that a lot of people over the course of his administration ran around desperately trying to keep him within at least the error bars of normal procedure. But for some reason, for this one event, you are willing to mock that understanding of events and instead maintain that Donald Trump is a slick mafioso commanding a mob of loyal stooges using only sly insinuations, leaving no explicit evidence he had ordered anything.

The apportionment authority is supposed to be used to ensure the effective expenditure of congressionally appropriated funding, not to extort a foreign power to advance the personal interests of the president..

Well that's the problem, isn't it. You believe with absolute assurance that Donald Trump, without ever telling Ukraine the funding was in jeopardy, was using that funding to extort them. That's an incredibly silly thing to think. Particularly when we can see from the evidence they gathered that Ukrainians instigated the information passing about the Bidens. Timeline:

1) Prosecutor general of Ukraine passes off dirt on Biden to Giuliani. Giuliani passes it to Trump.
2) The funding for Ukraine gets put on hold.
3) Trump talks to Zelensky about Biden.
4) The news reports that Trump was extorting Ukraine to get dirt on Biden.
5) The Ukrainian diplomats that coordinated the phone call, in private messages, express surprise to their American counterparts that the funding could be in jeopardy.
6) The funding gets released.

You can't extort someone without telling them the stakes. That's not a thing.

Mostly, I've judged from experience that you're willing to excuse or downplay almost anything if it comes from a Republican, regardless of how much brazen disregard they show for supposedly 'conservative' values.

You know that's far from the truth. I've made critical comments about Trump and Republicans multiple times just today on this forum. But when people go absolutely insane and make accusations that don't even make sense, you're going to find me defending against those. I've been thinking about this one all day: Hillary Clinton kept her communications on a private server, where she got hacked by the Russians, and then people blamed Trump for it. Do you not see how insane that is?

 

[Silvanus]

You know that's far from the truth. I've made critical comments about Trump and Republicans multiple times just today on this forum.

Eh, you've made one or two vague criticisms recently, after years spent denying and downplaying it all. And even then you'll insist that anything bad he would do is only bad because he's acting like a Democrat and the Democrats are still a thousand times worse.

But when people go absolutely insane and make accusations that don't even make sense, you're going to find me defending against those. I've been thinking about this one all day: Hillary Clinton kept her communications on a private server, where she got hacked by the Russians, and then people blamed Trump for it. Do you not see how insane that is?

People didn't "blame Trump" for where Clinton kept her emails. People "blamed Trump" for going so insanely hard on that line of attack, insisting that she should be incarcerated rather than just lose the election... and then it turns out that Trump treated top secret documents in even less secure ways, and his supporters no longer give a shit and its all a witch hunt. Basically, they blame Trump for gross hypocrisy, which he's displayed here in droves.

You can't extort someone without telling them the stakes. That's not a thing.

Dude, the stakes were communicated by the funds being withheld. That's how they were communicated. Extortion and blackmail are rarely done by literally spelling out in simple English what will happen and why-- especially by figures in public office, where it could come back to bite them in the ass.

They need something from him. He asks them for something... and also holds back what they need, which until then had been on its way. The implication is crystal fucking clear. Tony Soprano does the same shit, without ever explicitly saying to his mark "I am extorting you for XYZ". The viewer is meant to recognise it for what it obviously is.

 

[tstorm823]

Eh, you've made one or two vague criticisms recently, after years spent denying and downplaying it all. And even then you'll insist that anything bad he would do is only bad because he's acting like a Democrat and the Democrats are still a thousand times worse.

They are! They do all the same things and then lie to you about it. That's strictly worse.

People didn't "blame Trump" for where Clinton kept her emails. P

No, I meant the time Trump at a rally said something like "I bet Russia knows what's in her emails, they should really release those", and then they did, and people here took that as the smoking gun that Trump was working with Russia to rig the election. "We saw him give them an order and they followed. That's colluding with Russia!"

That was a real argument that people were really making 5 years ago.

Dude, the stakes were communicated by the funds being withheld.

The Ukrainians didn't know. The funds weren't going to them, they were to be spent by the US government on things to support the Ukrainian military. The US never stopped supporting them at any point, they still had ongoing support from the previous years budget, and nobody in Ukraine knew the internal balance sheets of the US government. They likely anticipated a surge of new equipment from the new allocation, but the date set for release of that was September 30th. Nobody in Ukraine knew the funding was delayed until the media reported on it. We have seen text messages from Ukrainian diplomats to American diplomats asking if the news reports are true, because they didn't know about it.

 

[Silvanus]

They are! They do all the same things and then lie to you about it. That's strictly worse.

And there is exactly what I'm talking about. You've endlessly denied and downplayed in order to reach this very conclusion. So when I say you're not actually thinking critically about Trump and the Republicans, I stand by it, and the weak-ass handwavey non-criticisms you've offered don't change that.

No, I meant the time Trump at a rally said something like "I bet Russia knows what's in her emails, they should really release those", and then they did, and people here took that as the smoking gun that Trump was working with Russia to rig the election. "We saw him give them an order and they followed. That's colluding with Russia!"

It's certainly not a good signal to be sending. It's essentially a nudge-nudge-wink-wink that a hostile foreign state is preferable to the Democrats. This is the attitude that leads directly to Republican-supporting stores selling shirts that say "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat".

The Ukrainians didn't know. The funds weren't going to them, they were to be spent by the US government on things to support the Ukrainian military. The US never stopped supporting them at any point, they still had ongoing support from the previous years budget, and nobody in Ukraine knew the internal balance sheets of the US government. They likely anticipated a surge of new equipment from the new allocation, but the date set for release of that was September 30th. Nobody in Ukraine knew the funding was delayed until the media reported on it. We have seen text messages from Ukrainian diplomats to American diplomats asking if the news reports are true, because they didn't know about it.

This is, perhaps, the flimsiest argument you've put forward on this topic.

Yes, the Ukrainian government is actually kept abreast of issues vital to its finances, including foreign investment. Obviously. And spending commitments are made based on expected future revenue.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Judge says he's inclined to unseal part of Trump search warrant affidavit

U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart ordered the Justice Department to file a redacted version of the affidavit by next Thursday, and told prosecutors to be prepared to explain the rationale behind those redactions.

www.yahoo.com

It'll be interesting to see if any witnesses are named. Who's got money on Ivanka?! After the whole "Jared Kushner selling secrets to the Saudis" thing, wouldn't shock me if Trump would throw him under the bus for Maralago, and Ivanka is moving to protect him from Trump.

I'm not sure any of them are willing to sacrifice access to their juicy inheritance for something as ethereal and uncommodifiable as moral fibre.

 

[dreng3]

I'm not sure any of them are willing to sacrifice access to their juicy inheritance for something as ethereal and uncommodifiable as moral fibre.

If Desantis was the witness it would be a brilliant way to take out the main competitor for a potential 2024 primary.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

They are! They do all the same things and then lie to you about it. That's strictly worse.

And, of course, Republicans don't lie about it.

 

[SilentPony]

I'm not sure any of them are willing to sacrifice access to their juicy inheritance for something as ethereal and uncommodifiable as moral fibre.

See my thinking is Trump is sitting there "Well Jared is a Jew, so I can throw him under the bus and no one would care." And Ivanka is sitting there thinking "Well Jared is a Jew, daddy would throw him under the bus and not care." And she's trying to protect her financial interest in her husband, because he's worth more than whatever inheritance she thinks she'll get. Remember Trump isn't a billionaire, not even close. He's not even a hundred millionaire. He might be worth 20-25 million, all of which will go to his incredible debts upon death. So I doubt daddy's little girl is getting much.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

See my thinking is Trump is sitting there "Well Jared is a Jew, so I can throw him under the bus and no one would care." And Ivanka is sitting there thinking "Well Jared is a Jew, daddy would throw him under the bus and not care." And she's trying to protect her financial interest in her husband, because he's worth more than whatever inheritance she thinks she'll get. Remember Trump isn't a billionaire, not even close. He's not even a hundred millionaire. He might be worth 20-25 million, all of which will go to his incredible debts upon death. So I doubt daddy's little girl is getting much.

Antisemitism hasn't been a noticeable element in the toxic coddled slurry of trump's mind so far, though aligning with those types of ppl isn't out of his wheel house if it seems like it benefits him or his ego. Can't say if he even understands what it is yet either.
It doesn't need to be the most money ever to get ppl compromising for it. Rich stay rich for a reason. I've seen far less morally bankrupt people sacrifice way more to achieve considerably less.

 

[SilentPony]

Antisemitism hasn't been a noticeable element in the toxic coddled slurry of trump's mind so far, though aligning with those types of ppl isn't out of his wheel house if it seems like it benefits him or his ego. Can't say if he even understands what it is yet either.
It doesn't need to be the most money ever to get ppl compromising for it. Rich stay rich for a reason. I've seen far less morally bankrupt people sacrifice way more to achieve considerably less.

Uhhh...

Trump Goes Full Anti-Semite, Unloads on American Jews in Wildly Bigoted Rant

The former president hit on nearly every anti-Jewish trope in the book, including the one about Jews supposedly controlling the media.

www.vanityfair.com

Trump uses anti-Semitic tropes to again criticize Jewish Americans

Former President Donald Trump, in a newly released interview, claimed that Jewish Americans "either don't like Israel or don't care about Israel," while also suggesting that evangelical Christians "love Israel more than the Jews in this country."

www.cnn.com

He literally described wealthy Jewish businessmen as "brutal killers" with a "bloodlust for money", and has aquatinted anti-Trump rhetoric to anti-Israeli rhetoric among Jewish critics and called them not loyal. To quote the man regarding his casino business;
"I’ve got Black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."
Not only is he racist, he's anti-Semitic.

 

[Piscian]

Uhhh...

Trump Goes Full Anti-Semite, Unloads on American Jews in Wildly Bigoted Rant

The former president hit on nearly every anti-Jewish trope in the book, including the one about Jews supposedly controlling the media.

www.vanityfair.com

Trump uses anti-Semitic tropes to again criticize Jewish Americans

Former President Donald Trump, in a newly released interview, claimed that Jewish Americans "either don't like Israel or don't care about Israel," while also suggesting that evangelical Christians "love Israel more than the Jews in this country."

www.cnn.com

He literally described wealthy Jewish businessmen as "brutal killers" with a "bloodlust for money", and has aquatinted anti-Trump rhetoric to anti-Israeli rhetoric among Jewish critics and called them not loyal. To quote the man regarding his casino business;
"I’ve got Black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."
Not only is he racist, he's anti-Semitic.

I always kinda take issue with the idea that Trump is a racist. I feel like he's just a ignorant bigot. He's the kind of person who will complain about the German immigrants if they cross him despite it being his own heritage. I see racists as actually believing in something where as Trump just isn't really committed to anything he says. Hes the kind of person who will sing the praises of one black guy and thats guys lineage because they were nice to him, and then a week later call another person and culture the n-word. I'm having trouble finding the word for it, but he just doesn't have enough of a personality to even be considered racist. He's just a bland cold spaghetti of hatred and craves attention. If he had two cities to give federal aid, one predominately black and one white, he'd still give the money to whichever one praised him more.

 

[SilentPony]

I always kinda take issue with the idea that Trump is a racist. I feel like he's just a ignorant bigot. He's the kind of person who will complain about the German immigrants if they cross him despite it being his own heritage. I see racists as actually believing in something where as Trump just isn't really committed to anything he says. Hes the kind of person who will sing the praises of one black guy and thats guys lineage because they were nice to him, and then a week later call another person and culture the n-word. I'm having trouble finding the word for it, but he just doesn't have enough of a personality to even be considered racist. He's just a bland cold spaghetti of hatred and craves attention. If he had two cities to give federal aid, one predominately black and one white, he'd still give the money to whichever one praised him more.

I mean its annicdotal, but there's the side-by-side photos of the Obama White House interns vs the Trump White House ones.

Spoiler: Hint: They're a little different

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I mean its annicdotal, but there's the side-by-side photos of the Obama White House interns vs the Trump White House ones.

Spoiler: Hint: They're a little different

I love that the only 2 people of color are at the very edge of the picture.

 

[SilentPony]

I love that the only 2 people of color are at the very edge of the picture.

I mean there is an orange mushroom man in the middle.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, the Ukrainian government is actually kept abreast of issues vital to its finances, including foreign investment. Obviously. And spending commitments are made based on expected future revenue.

The foreign investment was not money. I showed you the text of the bill. The US Government was not sending cash to Ukraine. The funding was for the US Department of Defense to allocate to things (weapons, supplies, training, intelligence, etc) to provide to Ukraine over the coming fiscal year. Nothing at all changed with Ukraine's finances. The delay in release of the money to the DoD did not change the support Ukraine was receiving, as allocated in the previous year's budget. It was still months before they would expect to feel the effects.

There was a thorough investigation after the whistleblower report. They have released private messages between diplomats from that time. None of them said anything about the military support being cancelled at any time prior to the news media reporting on it, and both the people allegedly enacting the extortion on behalf of Trump and the people supposedly being extorted expressed surprise at the reports in private correspondence. We have basically irrefutable evidence that Ukrainian officials only learned of the funding delay from the news.

Why are you so determined to believe there was extortion going on?