The latest poll states that congressional Democrats have a lower rating that Mr. Trump.
I know that's not directly Mr. Sanders popularity but really, can it be THAT much better than the rest of his party?
Bernie lost a lot of " popularity" points when he rolled over and let the Dems get away with rigging the system against him. He was seen as a sell out and spineless.
The latest poll states that congressional Democrats have a lower rating that Mr. Trump.
I know that's not directly Mr. Sanders popularity but really, can it be THAT much better than the rest of his party?
His party?
After 40 YEARS of claiming to be an "independent" and also a "democratic socialist", Sanders miraculously and suddenly discovered his Democrat Party "roots" only in order to attempt to get that party's nomination.
Like all Marxists, he is dishonest, opportunistic and relies on the ignorance of useful idiots.
He knows damn well that he cannot run, or win, under the title of his true ideology.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-14-2017).]
Why not call the most popular politician in the nation names? The least popular here which just demonstrates how out of touch the majority are here.
POPULAR WITH WHOM, THE COLLEGE kids that think they should get a free ride, but then expect 6 figure job salary .. Popular with those that think the government should give them everything, As long as someone else has to pay for it?
POPULAR WITH WHOM, THE COLLEGE kids that think they should get a free ride, but then expect 6 figure job salary .. Popular with those that think the government should give them everything, As long as someone else has to pay for it?
EXACTLY Bernie is a nut. It is impossible for his crazy ideas to work. There just is not enough "rich" people to pay for all the "free" programs.
POPULAR WITH WHOM, THE COLLEGE kids that think they should get a free ride, but then expect 6 figure job salary .. Popular with those that think the government should give them everything, As long as someone else has to pay for it?
Your absolutely right...I run into lots of them. They want free college tuition, live with mom & dad till theyre 35 (free room, food, laundry, medical..maybe even car), then IF they decide to move out and work, they EXPECT management or upper level jobs out of the gate. They usually wont even consider a job under $1000-$1500 a week as a starting salary. Ive had many in the past right out of vocational school ask about work and were 'willing' to start at $25 @ hour and full benefits.
I think it's plausible that the Special Counsel could issue a finding that President Trump has engaged in obstruction of justice, regardless of whether or not the Special Counsel issues any findings of willful collusion involving President Trump or anyone else of significance in the Trump Campaign with known Russian intelligence agents or proxies.
I would not describe any assertions from the Special Counsel that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice as a "straight line" that leads to the House of Representatives drawing up a Bill (not Clinton) of Impeachment against the President.
I think it depends on the totality of the Special Counsel's findings. If the evidence suggests that the President's obstructions of justice are only a misguided effort by the President to spare his fired National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, from additional humiliation and criminal penalties, I think I would say "OK, obstruction of justice, but that's where it ends. No reason to go forward with any Bill of Impeachment against the President."
If the totality of the evidence results in findings that implicate the President in any other criminal activity--and it could be something else--something apart from colluding with Russian agents in their efforts to intrude upon our 2016 elections--then I would say "OK, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Add it onto the President's bar 'tab'--the Bill of Impeachment."
Jared Kushner has a youthful, innocent looking face... imagine how any of us could "riff" on that... but let me hypothesize that there was something "unholy" about the conversations that he had. Jared's meeting with the Russian ambassador, who came to Trump Tower and was ushered into the building discretely, using a side entrance. Jared's conversation with the Russian "dude" who is (or was) the head honcho at VEB, which is a Russian bank or financial institution that was sanctioned by President Obama, in response to the Russian involvement in Ukraine and the Russian seizure of Crimea.
Is it too "science fiction-y" to think that it is possible--perhaps not probable, but just possible--that Jared crossed a line that would allow a federal prosecutor to indict him for some kind of white collar crime--maybe "sanctions busting?" And is it too science fiction-y to think that maybe the Special Counsel would have evidence that this was known to Donald J Trump--what Jared was up to?
What then?
Just a hypothetical. Too far-fetched to even imagine? Or not. "You make the call."
I think it's plausible that the Special Counsel could issue a finding that President Trump has engaged in obstruction of justice, regardless of whether or not the Special Counsel issues any findings of willful collusion involving President Trump or anyone else of significance.........
Just a hypothetical. Too far-fetched to even imagine? Or not. "You make the call."
First, what exactly is the crime committed by Russia? Second, what crime did Trump commit?
I think it's plausible that the Special Counsel could issue a finding that President Trump has engaged in obstruction of justice, regardless of whether or not the Special Counsel issues any findings of willful collusion involving President Trump or anyone else of significance in the Trump Campaign with known Russian intelligence agents or proxies.
Gee, you are clairvoyant. Did 'ga see his dream team of investigators ? All donation maxed out Shillary supporters. And he is best buds with Comey.
Originally posted by cliffw: Gee, you are clairvoyant. Did 'ga see his dream team of investigators ? All donation maxed out Shillary supporters. And he is best buds with Comey.
"Maxed out Shillary supporters"
quote
An individual can contribute $2,700 at most to a candidate for federal office in a single election cycle. That means you can give $5,400 to a single candidate in an election year: $2,700 during the primary campaign, and $2,700 more during the general election.
One way many households get around this limit is by having husbands and wives make separate contributions to a candidate. Even if only one spouse has an income, both householders can write a check for $2,700 to a candidate during a single election cycle.
Federal election laws prohibit someone who has contributed the maximum amount of money to a candidate in one election cycle from giving money to someone else to give. Also, companies are banned from issuing a bonus to employees for the purpose of writing checks to a candidate for federal office.
So, "maxed out Hillary Clinton supporters." To the tune of $10,800..? If Mueller or a Mueller-hire contributed the maximum permissible amount to Hillary Clinton for her primary and for her general election campaigns during the 2016 election cycle, and doubled up on it by having their spouse do the same.
That ($10,800) is pocket change for Robert Mueller, and pocket change for the caliber of attorneys and legal specialists and investigators that Mueller is hiring to fill out his Special Counsel investigation as his top level staff.
Is Robert Mueller a Democrat or a Republican?
quote
According to a Washington Post article from July 2001, Mueller is a registered Republican, or at least he was at the time that this article was published. Mueller was nominated to his position of FBI director under George W. Bush.
However, while Mueller might personally hold conservative beliefs, that’s not to say that he’s necessarily a partisan figure. Mueller has earned support from both sides of the political aisle. In fact, that aforementioned Washington Post story notes that Mueller has been described as apolitical.
Originally posted by cliffw: Gee, you are clairvoyant. Did 'ga see his dream team of investigators ? All donation maxed out Shillary supporters. And he is best buds with Comey.
That's some "weak tea" that you're brewing out there in Kerr County (TX).
Not impressed.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-16-2017).]
Granted it looks very much to be dem slanted. That said, they can't manufacture evidence. They can ignore evidence. I would think a republican slanted team being able to ignore also would be able have more effect than the dems. jmho I may not have thought this through. Or maybe I over thought it.
I am not going to prejudge the findings of the Special Counsel.
There are two aspects to these investigations, a criminal aspect, and a counterintelligence aspect.
If the Special Counsel draws up criminal indictments against anyone, he will have to explain how that person's actions are indictable, in his (Mueller's) estimation, and so he will have to describe in detail how that person transgressed against the relevant criminal statutes.
If the Special Counsel recommends that the President be impeached, he will have to explain how in his (Mueller's) estimation, the President's actions and behavior add up to "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", as set forth in the Constitution.
I defer to Special Counsel Mueller on these questions. I will not say whether I think his findings are accurate, until they have been publicly reported.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-17-2017).]
I am not going to prejudge the findings of the Special Counsel.
There are two aspects to these investigations, a criminal aspect, and a counterintelligence aspect.
If the Special Counsel draws up criminal indictments against anyone, he will have to explain how that person's actions are indictable, in his (Mueller's) estimation, and so he will have to describe in detail how that person transgressed against the relevant criminal statutes.
If the Special Counsel recommends that the President be impeached, he will have to explain how in his (Mueller's) estimation, the President's actions and behavior add up to "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", as set forth in the Constitution.
I defer to Special Counsel Mueller on these questions. I will not say whether I think his findings are accurate, until they have been publicly reported.
Counterintelligence ?
Special council drawing up indictments ?
Special council recommending impeachment ?
You don't know what the hell you're talking about Ronald and you look more and more deranged with every post like this that you make.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-17-2017).]
Thanks, for answering my 2 simple questions. Somehow the person who was asked the questions, must be busy.
He wouldn't have given a concise and rational answer anyway.
He's far too busy having wild leftie impeachment fantasies and pontificating paragraph upon paragraph about things that he obviously doesn't understand.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about Ronald and you look more and more deranged with every post like this that you make.
You're just splitting hairs. If the Special Counsel doesn't actually draw up criminal indictments, then he provides his conclusions--his "findings"--that prosecutors would use to draw up criminal indictments, should they be moved to accept or sign onto the end products of the Special Counsel's investigation. If the Special Counsel doesn't recommend impeachment, then he provides the conclusions--his conclusions--that the House of Representatives could use as raw material, for the purpose of drawing up a Bill of Impeachment, should they be moved to do such a thing.
What you are doing here--and not so much as even one whit more- is trying to deflect attention from the most important thing that I said, which goes back a few posts, where I said "I think it depends on the totality of the Special Counsel's findings."
Let me unpack that.
What I think should happen, after the Special Counsel releases his findings--the end products of his investigation--will depend on the totality of what the Special Counsel will eventually report out. Including "Guess what, as FBI Special Counsel, I conducted a very thorough and comprehensive investigation, and I have nothing to report in the way of wrongdoings or High Crime and Misdemeanors or Low Crimes and Misdemeanors by anyone associated with the Trump campaign, Trump transition team or Trump administration, or anyone anywhere on the planet (or anywhere in the Cosmos, as best as science has been able to determine)."
Why don't you try splitting some of the hair fragments that you just produced by splitting hairs that were originally intact, before you split them?
Did I ever post that I think you are "full of it"..?
Why yes, as a matter of fact, I did.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-17-2017).]
You're just splitting hairs. If the Special Counsel doesn't actually draw up criminal indictments, then he provides his conclusions--his "findings"--that prosecutors would use to draw up criminal indictments, should they be moved to accept or sign onto the end products of the Special Counsel's investigation. If the Special Counsel doesn't recommend impeachment, then he provides the conclusions--his conclusions--that the House of Representatives could use as raw material, for the purpose of drawing up a Bill of Impeachment, should they be moved to do such a thing.
What you are doing here--and not so much as even one whit more- is trying to deflect attention from the most important thing that I said, which goes back a few posts, where I said "I think it depends on the totality of the Special Counsel's findings."
Let me unpack that.
What I think should happen, after the Special Counsel releases his findings--the end products of his investigation--will depend on the totality of what the Special Counsel will eventually report out. Including "Guess what, as FBI Special Counsel, I conducted a very thorough and comprehensive investigation, and I have nothing to report in the way of wrongdoings or High Crime and Misdemeanors or Low Crimes and Misdemeanors by anyone associated with the Trump campaign, Trump transition team or Trump administration, or anyone anywhere on the planet (or anywhere in the Cosmos, as best as science has been able to determine)."
Why don't you try splitting some of the hair fragments that you just produced by splitting hairs that were originally intact, before you split them?
Did I ever post that I think you are "full of it"..?
Why yes, as a matter of fact, I did.
So, then you are saying that no laws have been broken and a team of people who hate Trump are try to smear his name. OK. I understand, it is politics as usual.
Where's the reading comprehension, my friend. How could you possibly get that out of what I posted?
Do I need to add some words for clarity?
I quote myself, with some ADDITIONAL WORDS for clarity:
quote
What I think should happen, after the Special Counsel releases his findings--the end products of his investigation--will depend on the totality of what the Special Counsel REPORTS WHEN HE HAS COMPLETED HIS INVESTIGATION.
Including THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WILL REPORT OUT WITH "Guess what, as FBI Special Counsel, I conducted a very thorough and comprehensive LEGAL investigation, and I have nothing to report in the way of wrongdoings or High Crime and Misdemeanors or Low Crimes and Misdemeanors by anyone associated with the Trump campaign, Trump transition team or Trump administration, or anyone anywhere on the planet (or anywhere in the Cosmos, as best as science has been able to determine)."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-17-2017).]
Where's the reading comprehension, my friend. How could you possibly get that out of what I posted?
Where is MY reading comprehension?? LOL I asked 2 EXTREMELY simple questions and all you could do is dodge them, first by not answering, then 2nd by posting vague opinions that have no answere within. THEN your third dodge was to say that you are holding off on giving a critique till after the political smear campaign has completed. BUT, I am the one with issues?? In your own words rinse: What crime did the Russians commit? What crime did Trump commit? See, they are simple questions, no need to "defer" to somebody else's opinions. An answere from you is requested. I refuse to entertain lengthy opinionated articles. All I want is the facts. What are they rinse?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-17-2017).]
Two years ago the Oregon Governor resigned over allegations that his live-in partner used their relationship to win contracts for her green-energy consulting business and failed to report the income on her taxes.
Yesterday the U.S. Attorney announced that no charges will be made.
The ex-Governor stated:
"As I have said from the beginning, I did not resign because I was guilty of any wrongdoing but rather because the media frenzy around these questions kept me from being the effective leader I wanted and needed to be,” Kitzhaber (the ex-Governor) said in a statement. “Then there was the real investigation, not by reporters, but people with subpoena power and the ability to look at everything in context. They decided there was nothing to pursue.”
So the appearance of impropriety doesn't necessarily make it so but the outcome can be the same.
Where is MY reading comprehension?? LOL I asked 2 EXTREMELY simple questions and all you could do is dodge them, first by not answering, then 2nd by posting vague opinions that have no answere within. THEN your third dodge was to say that you are holding off on giving a critique till after the political smear campaign has completed. BUT, I am the one with issues?? In your own words rinse: What crime did the Russians commit? What crime did Trump commit? See, they are simple questions, no need to "defer" to somebody else's opinions. An answere from you is requested. I refuse to entertain lengthy opinionated articles. All I want is the facts. What are they rinse?
He doesn't know what the crime is.........yet. They are using the proven dem formula to find an answer though.
Where's the reading comprehension, my friend. How could you possibly get that out of what I posted?
I have read every word that you wrote in this thread. I have often commented to you on how difficult it is to read/follow you. I do appreciate your input, but it is always lost in the sea of BS posted. An endless sea of opinionated drivel. Just being honest.
Since you aren't having any luck convincing anyone with your present writing style, how about going in a completely different direction and go for clarity of thought?
President Trump seems to have been agitated about the three ongoing Russia and Trump campaign-related investigations (House, Senate and FB)I since he first became aware of them. He seems to be agitated about these investigations, and now the FBI Special Counsel's investigation in particular, more with each passing day.
Anyone care to disagree with that?
Why is he so agitated about these investigations?
I think the President would be better served if he were to make and fully commit to the decision today to distance himself from these investigations and just let the investigations run their course, without any further comments about it from either himself, or from any of his White House staff. Especially from himself. He should abide by whatever his lawyers want to say about the investigations. If he doesn't like what his lawyers decide to say, then he can fire any of them and replace them. Or not.
Does anyone care to disagree with what I think, that the President would be better served... ?
I think he would be better served, were he to do that; and everyone who wants him to be President would be better served, if he were to do that.
I might find it something of a letdown personally, because I think it would reduce the daily output of choice raw material from the White House that gets processed into the scripts for so many of my favorite TV programs, like "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, "All In" with Chris Hayes and "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell. But them's the breaks.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-17-2017).]
I think the President would be better served if he were to make and fully commit to the decision ........
Does anyone care to disagree with what I think, that the President would be better served... ?
I think the rinse would be better served if he were to answer simple and direct questions rather than dodge and redirect with pointless copy pasted opinion articles.
President Trump seems to have been agitated about the three ongoing Russia and Trump campaign-related investigations (House, Senate and FB)I since he first became aware of them. He seems to be agitated about these investigations, and now the FBI Special Counsel's investigation in particular, more with each passing day.
Anyone care to disagree with that?
Why is he so agitated about these investigations?
I think the President would be better served if he were to make and fully commit to the decision today to distance himself from these investigations and just let the investigations run their course, without any further comments about it from either himself, or from any of his White House staff. Especially from himself. He should abide by whatever his lawyers want to say about the investigations. If he doesn't like what his lawyers decide to say, then he can fire any of them and replace them. Or not.
Does anyone care to disagree with what I think, that the President would be better served... ?
I think he would be better served, were he to do that; and everyone who wants him to be President would be better served, if he were to do that.
I might find it something of a letdown personally, because I think it would reduce the daily output of choice raw material from the White House that gets processed into the scripts for so many of my favorite TV programs, like "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, "All In" with Chris Hayes and "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell. But them's the breaks.
After Donald Trump's election victory, but before his first day in office--in December--there was a meeting between Jared Kushner and Sergei Gorkov. Gorkov is a major officer (the "president", if I'm not mistaken) of a Russian financial and banking institution, VneshEconomBank, or "VEB." VEB came under U.S. sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, after the Russian involvement in the fighting in Ukraine and the Russian "reintegration" of Crimea. It was (and is) illegal for U.S. citizens and entrepreneurs to do business with VEB, which is frequently described as being closely linked to Vladimir Putin.
Financial distress
Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, are exposed financially, to the "tune" of $1.3 billion. That is a loan payment that is due, just about 2 years from today, in connection with Jared Kushner's purchase of a 41-story office building at 666 Fifth Avenue (NYC.) It's not been a good acquisition for Jared. He has not been getting anywhere near the revenue stream that he counted on when he purchased the property. He is now badly overextended.
A criminal conspiracy
Jared used this meeting in December to arrange with Sergei Gorkov for a "sweetheart loan" from VEB that will help him "bigly" to save himself financially, or at least postpone the day when Jared and Ivanka will be forced to file for bankruptcy and go onto the welfare rolls. Jared laid out a scheme with Sergei Gorkov to disguise this illegal transaction, using shell companies, so that it would not be immediately obvious to anyone who was monitoring financial records that Jared's loan from VEB was a violation of the economic sanctions in place on Russia.
During this meeting, in December, Jared became a conspirator in a "sanctions busting" scheme, and was playing on his and his father-in-law, Donald Trump's expertise, in how to use shell companies to disguise business contracts and financial transactions that are actually illegal.
A quid pro quo
That's the "quid" of the "quid pro quo." The "quo" is that Jared, in exchange for this favor, promised Sergei Gorkov and also promised the Russian ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak, that he and his father-in-law, President-elect Trump, would orchestrate the removal of all U.S. economic sanctions against Russia. That (presumably) was music to Vladimir Putin's ears. Jared promised that this would be accomplished early in President Trump's (first) term, and at the first opportune moment; i.e., the first "politically viable" moment. As soon as they thought they could get away with it.
The President's criminal exposure
President-elect Trump was fully "read in" on the conspiracy, and at the very least, by his failure to expose it to any U.S. law enforcement agency, President-elect and then President Trump became a co-conspirator in a Sanctions Busting Scheme and a Secret Quid Pro Quo with official or de facto representatives of the Russian government. Furthermore, since the conspiracy started in December, while Donald Trump was still the President-elect, the Kushner-Gorkov conspiracy violated the One President At A Time statute, also known as the Logan Act.
This is just part of what I expect to see being reported by all major media outlets, when the Department of Justice Special Counsel, Robert Swan Mueller (III), reports out with the results of his "All Things Trump and Russia" investigation.
Brought to you by Bay Alarm Security. "What have you got to lose?" By Chevron gasolines with Techron. "Be good to your car." And by Carl's Jr. "Eat like you mean it." This message took 3 hours and 27 minutes, and 27,788 people paid to read it.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-17-2017).]
After Donald Trump's election victory, but before his first day in office--in December--there was a meeting between Jared Kushner and Sergei Gorkov. Gorkov is a major officer (the "president", if I'm not mistaken) of a Russian financial and banking institution, VneshEconomBank, or "VEB." VEB came under U.S. sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, after the Russian involvement in the fighting in Ukraine and the Russian "reintegration" of Crimea. It was (and is) illegal for U.S. citizens and entrepreneurs to do business with VEB, which is frequently described as being closely linked to Vladimir Putin.
Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, are exposed financially, to the "tune" of $1.3 billion. That is a loan payment that is due, just about 2 years from today, in connection with Jared Kushner's purchase of a 41-story office building at 666 Fifth Avenue (NYC.) It's not been a good acquisition for Jared. He has not been getting the revenue stream that he counted on when he purchased the property. He is now badly overextended.
Jared used this meeting in December to arrange with Sergei Gorkov for a "sweetheart loan" from VEB that will help him "bigly" to save himself financially, or at least postpone the day when Jared and Ivanka will be forced to file for bankruptcy and go onto the welfare rolls. Jared laid out a scheme with Sergei Gorkov to disguise this illegal transaction, using shell companies, so that it would not be immediately obvious to anyone who was monitoring financial records that Jared's loan from VEB was a violation of the economic sanctions in place on Russia.
During this meeting, in December, Jared became a conspirator in a "sanctions busting" scheme, and was playing on his and his father-in-law, Donald Trump's expertise, in how to use shell companies to disguise business contracts and financial transactions that are actually illegal.
That's the "quid" of the "quid pro quo." The "quo" is that Jared, in exchange for this favor, promised Sergei Gorkov and also promised the Russian ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak, that he and his father-in-law, President-elect Trump, would orchestrate the removal of all U.S. economic sanctions against Russia. That (presumably) was music to Vladimir Putin's ears. Jared promised that this would be accomplished early in President Trump's (first) term, and at the first opportune moment; i.e., the first "politically viable" moment. As soon as they thought they could get away with it.
President-elect Trump was fully "read in" on the conspiracy, and at the very least, by his failure to expose it to any U.S. law enforcement agency, President-elect and then President Trump became a co-conspirator in a Sanctions Busting Scheme and a Secret Quid Pro Quo with official or de facto representatives of the Russian government. Furthermore, since the conspiracy started in December, while Donald Trump was still the President-elect, the Kushner-Gorkov conspiracy violated the One President At A Time statute, also known as the Logan Act.
This is just part of what I expect to see being reported by all major media outlets, when the Department of Justice Special Counsel, Robert Swan Mueller (III), reports out with the results of his "All Things Trump and Russia" investigation.
Brought to you by Bay Alarm Home and Office Security Systems. "What have you got to lose?" By Chevron Gasolines with Techron. "Be good to your car." And by Carl's Jr. "Eat like you mean it."
I expected nothing less than this copy paste crap. Rinse are you convinced that the long the copy paste the more likely people are to believe it?
I asked simple questions of YOU. NOT opinions of others. You can't even substantiate ANY of those claims or opinions, so why post them?
Tell the TRUTH as YOU know it rinse. What crimes were commented by Russia and Trump? JUST facts as YOU understand them. Or maybe you don't have the capacity to make your own mind up, just relying on others to think for you?
I don't expect what I just laid out to become reality, exactly; but it's being reported (and not just from fringe media venues like Zero Hedge) that Jared Kushner's business transactions and finances over the years is getting a close look from the Special Counsel.
I have not ever said that President Trump has committed a transgression, under the criminal statutes. I do see good reason for everyone in Congress, Republican and Democrat alike, to want the Special Counsel to complete his investigation without being interfered with or hindered by the President, or by anyone else.
Mike Flynn? Very suspicious behavior. Significant omissions on his security clearance application. Registers, but only after media exposure, and after he was fired, as representing foreign governments and clients. Has floated, through a defense attorney, an offer to testify in exchange for immunity. Paul Manafort? Under FBI investigation for his real estate and other business transactions, some that are (or were) connected with Russia and Ukraine. Carter Page? His communications were being monitored under a FISA warrant that was issued during the Obama administration. The list of "red flags" about the Trump campaign, Trump transition team and now, the Trump administration, is "quite" a list.
Do you think that the Special Counsel is only for the purpose of going after the person of Donald Trump?
I have said that President Trump is agitated about these investigations. Are you also agitated? And if so--why?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-17-2017).]
After Donald Trump's election victory, but before his first day in office--in December--there was a meeting between Jared Kushner and Sergei Gorkov. Gorkov is a major officer (the "president", if I'm not mistaken) of a Russian financial and banking institution, VneshEconomBank, or "VEB." VEB came under U.S. sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, after the Russian involvement in the fighting in Ukraine and the Russian "reintegration" of Crimea. It was (and is) illegal for U.S. citizens and entrepreneurs to do business with VEB, which is frequently described as being closely linked to Vladimir Putin.
Financial distress
Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, are exposed financially, to the "tune" of $1.3 billion. That is a loan payment that is due, just about 2 years from today, in connection with Jared Kushner's purchase of a 41-story office building at 666 Fifth Avenue (NYC.) It's not been a good acquisition for Jared. He has not been getting anywhere near the revenue stream that he counted on when he purchased the property. He is now badly overextended.
A criminal conspiracy
Jared used this meeting in December to arrange with Sergei Gorkov for a "sweetheart loan" from VEB that will help him "bigly" to save himself financially, or at least postpone the day when Jared and Ivanka will be forced to file for bankruptcy and go onto the welfare rolls. Jared laid out a scheme with Sergei Gorkov to disguise this illegal transaction, using shell companies, so that it would not be immediately obvious to anyone who was monitoring financial records that Jared's loan from VEB was a violation of the economic sanctions in place on Russia.
During this meeting, in December, Jared became a conspirator in a "sanctions busting" scheme, and was playing on his and his father-in-law, Donald Trump's expertise, in how to use shell companies to disguise business contracts and financial transactions that are actually illegal.
A quid pro quo
That's the "quid" of the "quid pro quo." The "quo" is that Jared, in exchange for this favor, promised Sergei Gorkov and also promised the Russian ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak, that he and his father-in-law, President-elect Trump, would orchestrate the removal of all U.S. economic sanctions against Russia. That (presumably) was music to Vladimir Putin's ears. Jared promised that this would be accomplished early in President Trump's (first) term, and at the first opportune moment; i.e., the first "politically viable" moment. As soon as they thought they could get away with it.
The President's criminal exposure
President-elect Trump was fully "read in" on the conspiracy, and at the very least, by his failure to expose it to any U.S. law enforcement agency, President-elect and then President Trump became a co-conspirator in a Sanctions Busting Scheme and a Secret Quid Pro Quo with official or de facto representatives of the Russian government. Furthermore, since the conspiracy started in December, while Donald Trump was still the President-elect, the Kushner-Gorkov conspiracy violated the One President At A Time statute, also known as the Logan Act.
This is just part of what I expect to see being reported by all major media outlets, when the Department of Justice Special Counsel, Robert Swan Mueller (III), reports out with the results of his "All Things Trump and Russia" investigation.
Brought to you by Bay Alarm Security. "What have you got to lose?" By Chevron gasolines with Techron. "Be good to your car." And by Carl's Jr. "Eat like you mean it." This message took 3 hours and 27 minutes, and 27,788 people paid to read it.
Sources? (Names of real people that have come forth with real information)
