• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Indictments coming...

Page 192 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,743
9,838
136
Well according to my Qanon niece, Trump is to return "very soon" in a blaze of glory. Trump will regain the presidency, Joe Biden will be cast into hell literally cast into hell, and all will be peachy once again on heavenly earth. And the ballot recounts now going on in AZ, and soon to be other states, they are a huge part of the picture for the return of Trump into power. As she says, "it's gods will". So, if insurrectionist are to be held accountable or grand jury's are to be convened, well.... not according to biblical scripture.

Seriously, the crap I hear from my QAnon niece, the stuff she swears by, the websites she follows, absolutely Twilight Zone crazy. I truly wonder how deep the never ending insanity actually goes. And understand, this is Trump. This is most if not all of the republican US congress. They are all on board, all of them, and completely convinced, and absolutely loyal to the death. I just wanna to know.... wha happened to America? You can tell us. Was it the fluoride? :oops:
It wasn't fluoride. It was access to unlimited information without the requisite training on how to determine what is true, what might be true, what seems sketchy, and what is blatantly false yet designed to twang the human amygdala is a way that is hard to resist. It is unlimited access to every other person on earth allowing people with mental and emotional problems to find many others with the same afflictions, which while in many cases can be beneficial for working together to better handle those afflictions can also result in those people suddenly thinking that those afflictions are okay instead of something to work on and control.

BTW, thank you for the paragraph break.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,211
4,850
136
pretty sure that was a rhetorical question. everyone paying attention knows that, including Ivanka, which was the point of that article/post.
For some reason I responded, when I had already realized this yesterday. :rolleyes:
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
5,183
4,830
136
How long before Weisselberg suffers some "untimely" unnatural death. Take away his testimony, and Don may well be nearly impossible to prosecute.

There are many red flags that the Trump Organization was and still is a criminal enterprise. Too many of the people around him don’t have real job titles or descriptions, they are simply described as lieutenants or fixers. That’s because the business is performative and they’re all playing parts. Ivanka claimed in a deposition that she knew Allen Weisselberg worked for the Trump Organization but she didn’t know it what capacity. I imagine that at the Trump Organization CFO means whatever you want it to mean on that particular day.

Other red flags include the family embedded throughout the organization - again, without clear job responsibilities or titles. Trump followed the same playbook when he became President…All those “Special Assistants to the President”. Normal executives in legitimate businesses change jobs regularly and bring experience they gained at one company to another as they climb the corporate ladder. People that work for the Trump Organization don’t. Allen Weisselberg, for example, has never worked for anyone but the Trump family. His children never worked for anyone other than their father.

The "COO" of the Trump Organization is an ex-football player with a background in electronic surveillance who was hired because Trump was impressed with the way handled a heckler at a golf tournament…ie …A goon. When your Chief Operating Officer is muscle whose only experience is intimidation, that’s a clear indicator of what your operation is about.

 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,211
4,850
136
How long before Weisselberg suffers some "untimely" unnatural death. Take away his testimony, and Don may well be nearly impossible to prosecute.

There are many red flags that the Trump Organization was and still is a criminal enterprise. Too many of the people around him don’t have real job titles or descriptions, they are simply described as lieutenants or fixers. That’s because the business is performative and they’re all playing parts. Ivanka claimed in a deposition that she knew Allen Weisselberg worked for the Trump Organization but she didn’t know it what capacity. I imagine that at the Trump Organization CFO means whatever you want it to mean on that particular day.

Other red flags include the family embedded throughout the organization - again, without clear job responsibilities or titles. Trump followed the same playbook when he became President…All those “Special Assistants to the President”. Normal executives in legitimate businesses change jobs regularly and bring experience they gained at one company to another as they climb the corporate ladder. People that work for the Trump Organization don’t. Allen Weisselberg, for example, has never worked for anyone but the Trump family. His children never worked for anyone other than their father.

The "COO" of the Trump Organization is an ex-football player with a background in electronic surveillance who was hired because Trump was impressed with the way handled a heckler at a golf tournament…ie …A goon. When your Chief Operating Officer is muscle whose only experience is intimidation, that’s a clear indicator of what your operation is about.

Weisellberg's ex-daughter in-law just received an eviction notice from Weisellberg senior. Where she had lived apparently rent free, which she is going to be testifying to at the grand jury hearing. God only knows what other witness intimidation is going on currently.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,984
14,146
136
Weisellberg's ex-daughter in-law just received an eviction notice from Weisellberg senior. Where she had lived apparently rent free, which she is going to be testifying to at the grand jury hearing. God only knows what other witness intimidation is going on currently.
That's not accurate-

 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,242
2,864
136
It wasn't fluoride. It was access to unlimited information without the requisite training on how to determine what is true, what might be true, what seems sketchy, and what is blatantly false yet designed to twang the human amygdala is a way that is hard to resist.
This was not just people not information overload. This is a targeted propaganda campaign by one of the most powerful people in the world, a media mogul billionaire very probably aided by the Russian Government. It sounds crazy, but this is not conspiracy theory territory. This looks to be the most likely scenario. It might actually be the most sophisticated and successful propaganda campaigns in history. This is literally James Bond villain shit.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,240
9,441
136

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,928
5,349
136
You can’t make this Shit up!!

Projection. It’s *always* projection!

Edit: Also, wrong thread?
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
16,035
5,959
136
You can’t make this Shit up!!

You really have to appreciate the sheer volume of people -of a particular moral stature- who has been caught up in "Trump World"
- Oh my god, he is one of us!
Queue pedos, rapists, Q's, killers, generic assholes and psychopaths.
You dont have to be an asshole to be a Trump supporter BUT IT HELPS A LOT.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,211
4,850
136

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
28,139
3,470
126
Looks like the Giuliani investigation is digging up some more Trump admin skullduggery regarding possible perjury by good old slimy Kurt Volker. I remember him testifying. Giuliani data is yielding results.

A New Giuliani Tape Shows a Key Witness Didn’t Testify Accurately in the First Trump Impeachment – Mother Jones

Kurt Volker said he didn’t know Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. New audio indicates he did.
So...perjury?
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
16,035
5,959
136
This is fcking depressing

In the presence of tons of evidence, there be not a prosecutor who wants to pick up the gauntlet.
House. Senate. Presidency.
And dems be like ........ pussies.


Scared of picking a fight? Idiots, you are already in it ffs...
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,483
2,158
136
So...perjury?
Making an inaccurate statement in testimony is not a crime unless you know it's inaccurate, and then the prosecution would have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't require direct evidence per se, but I really doubt it could be established here without it. So probably nothing unless there is crystal clear evidence of him lying to protect Trump. Even really good circumstantial evidence of such I think gets no pursuit for political reasons.
 

Meghan54

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2009
9,993
2,942
136
Making an inaccurate statement in testimony is not a crime unless you know it's inaccurate, and then the prosecution would have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't require direct evidence per se, but I really doubt it could be established here without it. So probably nothing unless there is crystal clear evidence of him lying to protect Trump. Even really good circumstantial evidence of such I think gets no pursuit for political reasons.
What's circumstantial about being recorded in a phone conversation about which you've lied about the substance of said phone conversation....
(The below is taken from the quoted Mother Jones article linked above...)


“Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion,” Volker said in an October 3, 2019 deposition before the House Intelligence Committee. He repeated that claim in televised testimony before the committee the following month: “At no time was I aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. As you know from the extensive real-time documentation I have provided, Vice President Biden was not a topic of our discussions.”

CNN’s report on that July 2019 phone call shows that Volker’s account was not true. Giuliani repeatedly urged an investigation targeting Biden during that conversation, which Volker was part of. And Giuliani said that announcing such a probe would help Zelensky improve relations with Trump.

“All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I’m gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he’s gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out,” Giuliani said at one point. “Somebody in Ukraine’s gotta take that seriously.”

Giuliani also told Yermak that he was eager for Ukraine to look into an allegation that Shokin “was fired because Vice President Biden threatened [former Ukrainian President Petro] Poroshenko with not getting a [US] loan guarantee that was critical at the time.”

In his October 3 deposition, Volker acknowledged arranging and participating in this call with Giuliani and Yermak, but he insisted it was “just an introductory” conversation. “It was literally, you know, ‘let me introduce, you know, Mr. Giuliani; let me introduce Mr. Yermak. I wanted to put you in touch.'” Volker said. “Blah, blah, blah.”

In fact, the lengthy call—which reportedly shocked Ukrainian officials—included an extensive discussion of what Giuliani and Trump hoped to get out of Ukraine.


So, what is circumstantial about being recorded in a phone converstation, a recording that directly contradicts your own sworn testimony? Sounds a lot more like actual evidence...not circumstantial.

This was no mischaracterization of a phone call but instead blatant lying about the substance of the phone call. Guess dumbass didn't think a copy would surface.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,928
5,349
136
This is fcking depressing

In the presence of tons of evidence, there be not a prosecutor who wants to pick up the gauntlet.
House. Senate. Presidency.
And dems be like ........ pussies.


Scared of picking a fight? Idiots, you are already in it ffs...
With all the strange happenings in Garland's DoJ, I kinda half expect he's already been told by Biden he's renominating him for SCOTUS if Breyer retires. Garland really seems to be going out of his way to make DoJ as non-partisan, bordering Trump-friendly, as possible.

Do they not understand that Mitch doesn't need a reason to gum up a SCOTUS nomination? They miss that memo somehow???
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
16,035
5,959
136
With all the strange happenings in Garland's DoJ, I kinda half expect he's already been told by Biden he's renominating him for SCOTUS if Breyer retires. Garland really seems to be going out of his way to make DoJ as non-partisan, bordering Trump-friendly, as possible.

Do they not understand that Mitch doesn't need a reason to gum up a SCOTUS nomination? They miss that memo somehow???
Oh thats what its about. It could be, it could be.
Did you follow round n of infrastructure negotiations with R? It seems like Biden may have managed to break off five of them, maybe he thinks he can re-purpose them when Garland (and eventually HR-1 again) comes up.
Ill be the first to admit it if Biden pulls that off... Did not believe it could be done.(still dont)
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,483
2,158
136
What's circumstantial about being recorded in a phone conversation about which you've lied about the substance of said phone conversation....
(The below is taken from the quoted Mother Jones article linked above...)


“Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion,” Volker said in an October 3, 2019 deposition before the House Intelligence Committee. He repeated that claim in televised testimony before the committee the following month: “At no time was I aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. As you know from the extensive real-time documentation I have provided, Vice President Biden was not a topic of our discussions.”

CNN’s report on that July 2019 phone call shows that Volker’s account was not true. Giuliani repeatedly urged an investigation targeting Biden during that conversation, which Volker was part of. And Giuliani said that announcing such a probe would help Zelensky improve relations with Trump.

“All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I’m gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he’s gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out,” Giuliani said at one point. “Somebody in Ukraine’s gotta take that seriously.”

Giuliani also told Yermak that he was eager for Ukraine to look into an allegation that Shokin “was fired because Vice President Biden threatened [former Ukrainian President Petro] Poroshenko with not getting a [US] loan guarantee that was critical at the time.”

In his October 3 deposition, Volker acknowledged arranging and participating in this call with Giuliani and Yermak, but he insisted it was “just an introductory” conversation. “It was literally, you know, ‘let me introduce, you know, Mr. Giuliani; let me introduce Mr. Yermak. I wanted to put you in touch.'” Volker said. “Blah, blah, blah.”

In fact, the lengthy call—which reportedly shocked Ukrainian officials—included an extensive discussion of what Giuliani and Trump hoped to get out of Ukraine.


So, what is circumstantial about being recorded in a phone converstation, a recording that directly contradicts your own sworn testimony? Sounds a lot more like actual evidence...not circumstantial.

This was no mischaracterization of a phone call but instead blatant lying about the substance of the phone call. Guess dumbass didn't think a copy would surface.
How do you know that, at the time he testified in the impeachment inquiry, Volker knew that he was providing false testimony? The fact that the testimony was false is indisputable, the other element of perjury is that the person knowingly and willfully provided the false testimony. This can't simply be assumed. You need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he simply did not forget the details of the conversation. The extent to which it was discussed at the time provides circumstantial evidence that he would likely not have misremembered the conversation. Direct evidence would be something like a confession or witness testimony that Volker told them he was going to lie for Trump. You certainly can make a strong case on circumstantial evidence alone, for example if there were multiple emails or recorded conversations at different dates that indicate he remembered the phone call at other points in time.

I am simply stating my opinion is that, absent very significant proof he knowingly provide false testimony, the political implications will keep this away from a courtroom. I probably shouldn't really have used a circumstantial/direct evidence wording to indicate what might be significant proof. There could be nearly ironclad proof that is technically circumstantial. I more chose them to represent the lay expectations of what concretely demonstrates something vs. what only indicates it. In reality, direct evidence is not necessarily superior to circumstantial evidence, and it's frequently misunderstood what technically counts as direct vs. circumstantial. Hell, I'm not even fully sure my stated understanding is accurate.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,743
9,838
136
How do you know that, at the time he testified in the impeachment inquiry, Volker knew that he was providing false testimony? The fact that the testimony was false is indisputable, the other element of perjury is that the person knowingly and willfully provided the false testimony. This can't simply be assumed. You need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he simply did not forget the details of the conversation. The extent to which it was discussed at the time provides circumstantial evidence that he would likely not have misremembered the conversation. Direct evidence would be something like a confession or witness testimony that Volker told them he was going to lie for Trump. You certainly can make a strong case on circumstantial evidence alone, for example if there were multiple emails or recorded conversations at different dates that indicate he remembered the phone call at other points in time.

I am simply stating my opinion is that, absent very significant proof he knowingly provide false testimony, the political implications will keep this away from a courtroom. I probably shouldn't really have used a circumstantial/direct evidence wording to indicate what might be significant proof. There could be nearly ironclad proof that is technically circumstantial. I more chose them to represent the lay expectations of what concretely demonstrates something vs. what only indicates it. In reality, direct evidence is not necessarily superior to circumstantial evidence, and it's frequently misunderstood what technically counts as direct vs. circumstantial. Hell, I'm not even fully sure my stated understanding is accurate.
Any regular citizen would already be in prison if we did what he did.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY