Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he doesn’t recall any conversations with President Donald Trump about the Ukraine phone call ― contrary to the president’s claim that McConnell had said the call was completely “innocent.”
“The president has said that you told him that his phone call with Ukrainian president was ‘perfect’ and ‘innocent,’” a reporter said to McConnell during a Capitol Hill press briefing Tuesday. “Do you believe that the president has handled this Ukrainian situation perfectly?”
“We’ve not had any conversations on that subject,” McConnell responded. When asked if that indicated the president was lying about that claim, McConnell said “you’ll have to ask him. I don’t recall any conversations with the president about that phone call.”
While speaking to reporters on the South Lawn on Oct. 3, Trump said that he and McConnell had spoken directly about the phone call, according to the official White House transcript of Trump’s remarks.
“He put out a statement that said that was the most innocent phone call he’s read. And I spoke to him about it, too,” the president said.
“He said, ‘That was the most innocent phone call that I’ve read.’ I mean, give me a break. Anybody that reads it says the same thing,” Trump added.
The call summary released by the White House was the catalyst for an impeachment inquiry looking at whether Trump withheld nearly $400 million in foreign aid to Ukraine unless Ukrainian officials investigated his potential 2020 presidential rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. It is illegal to solicit foreign involvement in U.S. elections, and investigations have yielded no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens.
Lindsey Graham Suggests Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Might Convince Him To Back Impeachment
Usually steadfast Donald Trump supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) indicated that a convincing “quid pro quo” in the president’s dealings with Ukraine could make him reconsider his opposition to impeachment.
Graham revealed the surprising crack in his impeachment armor in an “Axios on HBO” interview that aired Sunday.
In another double-edged observation about Trump, Graham said that while the president can be “charming,” he was also a “handful” and an “equal opportunity abuser of people.”
Check it out in the promo clip above.
When asked if he would be open to impeaching Trump if enough incriminating information is developed, Graham said he would.
“Sure. I mean... show me something that ... is a crime. If you could show me that ... Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing,” Graham told Axios’ Jonathan Swan.
But Graham still insisted that Trump pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation into political rival Joe Biden and his son was “not impeachable,” even though at the time, Trump was withholding millions in military aid to the nation.
Graham’s interview on Tuesday preceded acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s declaration Thursday that Trump’s Ukraine dealing concerning Biden was a quid pro quo. But Graham still hasn’t seen anything impeachable, the senator’s spokesman Kevin Bishop told Axios on Friday.
According to the Los Angeles Times, anti-Trump protesters were met by a group of Trump supporters after moving from the beach to the pier. Santa Monica police Sgt. D. Hicks said after approximately ten minutes of exchanging taunts and chants, “everything went to crap.”
While some anti-Trump protesters were screaming and others scattered in an attempt to avoid the spray, the man in the MAGA hat went towards an anti-Trump protester who was being held on the ground by Trump supporters and sprayed him.
The video also shows that before the man in the MAGA hat was arrested, he pled with police, claiming anti-Trump protesters attacked him, calling them “fucking libtards” and “commies.” The video showed no such thing.
Police said that the man had a “fairly extensive” criminal record. And after viewing the video, they believe another man may have also sprayed the crowd too. None of the protesters were seriously injured.
With an impeachment inquiry underway, Trump has ratcheted up his rhetoric, going after the whistleblower and tweeting about a civil war, which some think could provoke armed extremists who support him to be moved to public violence.
A single incident in California cannot be laid at the feet of the president, but it is concerning that the man in the White House does more to stoke anger and fear within his deranged and unstable supporters than he does to calm them.
MY OP ED TO NON TRUMPERS:
Guns are no longer for hunting animals. I know that the thought putting bullets into another human being is distasteful for many peace loving liberals but ask yourselves, "Are Trump supporters are human beings?" They are homo sapiens but whether they are human beings is another question.
Trump wants a civil war and so do his supporters. Trumpers are not our opponents, they are the enemies of all humanity. They are dangerous. They are no different than the members of the Waffen SS who could kill you. The cannot be reasoned with nor can they be reformed. They could kill you as easily as you would swat a mosquito. They are amoral and immoral. They are repulsed by truth. If given free reign, they would exterminate all non Whites.
Trump will lose this election and when that happens prepare to defend yourselves from his deranged mob. Install security cameras, get a watchdog and get a gun that is right for you and don't hesitate to use it.
Trump Cheated (Shocker!) on Property Tax; But Will Anyone Go to Jail?
ProPublica published a piece Wednesday that put the spotlight once again on some questionable financial practices of the Trump Organization, which showed one set of books to banks (inflating value) and another to New York City tax authorities (deflating value).
Is this just the usual Trump mendacity, or can prosecutors see this as part of a pattern? And if so, could it be prosecuted? Who would be tagged as the defendant(s)? If not, what more is needed to bring the guilty parties to justice?
Before we explore these questions, let’s look at the facts. Both versions of them.
ProPublica obtained property tax docs for four Trump properties. These docs became public when Trump appealed the tax bills, and the loan records became public when Trump’s lenders sold the debt on the properties. Significant discrepancies were unearthed between the tax records and loan records for two of the properties: Trump International Hotel & Tower, on Central Park West, and 40 Wall St.
Tax and loan documents for 40 Wall St. showed significant discrepancies in how certain costs such as insurance were reported. Further, Trump representatives reported different occupancy rates to lenders and tax officials: 81 percent to lenders (rising later to 95 percent), and just 59 percent to tax authorities. Rising occupancy rates are valued by lenders because they are indicative of rising income level which is material to securing refinancing, while lower rates, of course, mean lower taxes.
Meanwhile, documents for the Trump International Hotel & Tower showed that city tax officials were advised that this property made about $822,000 in 2017 from renting space in the building to other businesses, while loan officials were told that the building made about $1.67 million. ProPublica further notes that Trump appeared not to report income from leasing space for television antennas on tax documents but did report the income on loan docs.
Each of the above-noted discrepancies is indicative of potential fraud. But do they represent instances of a prosecutable case?
The short answer is: not yet. The discrepancies do reflect a situational ethics approach toward financial obligations and responsibilities. But more evidence will be needed to prosecute anyone should criminal prosecution be considered by the authorities.
Who might be prosecuted here? It is unclear just who is responsible for submitting the doctored financial statements to the lending authorities and tax officials. Were the folks who submitted the documents the same folks who prepared them? If so, what were their marching orders? Who directed the Trump Organization officials to tailor the financial statements to minimize property taxes or maximize occupancy rates to obtain loans?
Investigators need to home in on the work papers prepared to support the finagled financial statements in order to determine “willful intent,” or “mens rea” that James Comey so infamously referenced. Such evidence may well be found at Mazars USA—the Trump Organization accounting firm that is the subject of intensive litigation with regard to subpoenas served by both the U.S. Congress and the Manhattan DA’s office.
Accountant work papers have been found to be beneficial when uncovering evidence of intent to defraud in case after case of white-collar fraud, specifically tax fraud. In fact, accountant work files and testimony provided critical evidence leading to the conviction of Paul Manafort in the Mueller investigations and prosecutions. It should be noted that tax fraud, bank fraud, and the falsification of business records may result in felony charges that could be contemplated by the Manhattan DA and provide for prison sentences that could lead the convicted defendants to land in Rikers Island for a stretch with the aforementioned Manafort.
Chip Somodevilla
Evidence of corrupt intent to defraud either a financial institution or a public tax authority is critical to a successful criminal prosecution. The use of a double or triple set of books and records by company officials for fraudulent purposes is a terrific example of overt acts of corrupt intent. But further evidence will be needed here to link all those involved in each of the instances denoted above.
Email, texts, voice mail, notes to the file and other evidence of directions to finagle the financial docs are needed. Further forensic analysis of the documents, for example fingerprint analysis, ink chemistry analysis and handwriting analysis are investigative tools available to the prosecutors to tighten the vise and provide the links in the chain of potential targets.
Cohen was reportedly debriefed in detail recently by the Manhattan DA’s office. His testimony will be needed to outline just who in the Trump Organization was responsible for the preparation of the questionable documents referenced above. Cohen’s credibility will clearly be attacked in court by the defendant(s) and will become a question for the jury to grapple with.
Cohen provided the Southern District of New York with a prosecutive path for those responsible for cooking the books at the Trump Organization with regard to the reimbursement of “hush money” payments to Cohen. That path is now available to the Manhattan DA. Add Cohen’s now corroborated congressional testimony outlining the transactional financial ethics referenced above, used by the Trump team in their shady business dealings and the jury will likely be sitting on the edge of their seats. All the DA needs to do now is fill in some blanks in combination with demonstrating a pattern of fraud over time—the closing argument is shaping up to be very persuasive.
The allegation that the Trump Organization appeared not to report income from leasing space for television antennas to tax authorities but did report the income on loan docs revives memories of the landmark New York Times tax fraud series on Fred Trump and Donald Trump’s financial shenanigans in the ’90s wherein the Times detailed multiple instances of unreported income streams tailored by Fred Trump for the Donald.
While the statute of limitations has long expired with regard to the multi-million dollar gift tax evasion schemes entered into by Donald Trump, prosecutors can use evidence of historical frauds to depict a pattern of fraudulent conduct on the part of a defendant no matter how long ago the fraud occurred. It goes to willfulness or corrupt intent exhibited by Individual-1.
The Manhattan DA’s case against the Trump Organization may appear to be on its surface just a mundane business fraud type of case. But fraudulent documents don’t change stories, particularly when there are witnesses available to tie the documents and the corrupt intent together.
Add the historical pattern of fraud engaged in by Individual-1 and the Manhattan DA’s case appears to be silently moving along like a stealth nuclear submarine under the radar and there are no available defenses available like an Office of Legal Counsel opinion to protect the prospective defendants from a potentially lethal prosecutorial attack.
Before I begin let me say, "Hey Trump supporters, fuck you!" OK you asshole, since most of you can barely read and since most of you are traitors to America, watch the video and listen to a true American hero.
Non of you fat waddling out of shape gluttons could ever meet the physical requirements to serve in the military so keep shoving junk food into your lie holes pie holes and die soon. Mad Dog Mattis should slap the taste out of your mouths.
George Will has a warning for Republican lawmakers: If you don’t stand up to President Donald Trump, you deserve to lose everything in next year’s election.
Will, a longtime conservative voice who quit the party in 2016 when it was clear Trump would be nominated, slammed the president’s decision to “betray” America’s Kurdish allies in Syria. He said the move could complete “the destruction of the GOP’s advantage regarding foreign policy.”
Trump’s gross and comprehensive incompetence now increasingly impinges upon the core presidential responsibility. This should, but will not, cause congressional Republicans to value their own and their institution’s dignity and exercise its powers more vigorously than they profess fealty to Trump"
Will added that Trump’s refusal to cooperate with the conservative voice into his dealings with Ukraine was in itself an impeachable offense.
“In 13 months, all congressional Republicans who have not defended Congress by exercising ‘the constitutional rights of the place’ should be defeated,” he wrote.
