Okay, so now we all accept #MichaelCohen was truthful and not in #Prague? Cool. I think I’m still in the money on who was. @Maddow @lawrence @FBIWFO

Here is my first inkling of who I thought it was when I read the Steele Dossier. That report was raw intel. Getting one of two Russia connected Trump lawyers confused would be the kind of thing a matured piece of intelligence work product could clear up. So I went through both Cohen and Boris Epshteyn’s Twitter activity for August 2016 and found two periods in August that Epshteyn went dark. Later, a rather authoritative Twitter account showed me how one of the periods was not possible. But I think it would be possible if your rich Russian uncle wanted to fix it for you.

I wonder if I brought the heat down on Boris?


Two weeks after that Boris was gone from the Whitehouse.

With all the “Resistance” so certain that it was Michael Cohen,I signed off:

I understand that Epshteyn is a native Russian speaker. With what was being negotiated I would expect the Russians would want to have someone like Epshteyn as their cutout for the final assault. By August the emails were mostly out. Just Podesta to come in October. They held that for an emergency and dropped them 30 minutes after the Access Holywood tape was released.

What was coming was the micro-targeting. The big propaganda hydrogen bomb. And the Trump team, likely headed by Brad Parsale’s San Antonio crew, would need Russian speakers to work the attack. Who better than Boris. Who now coincidentally runs the political shop of the massive right wing propaganda network Sinclair Broadcasting.

It’s all going according to plan. Because the background noise is so high, the press overlooks the obvious.

Cohen’s documents got me looking at Trump finances and my earlier work. For some reason, on May 7, 2016, I pulled Trump’s 1998 mortgage on 767 Fifth Ave. $700 million owed to Lehman Brothers. I think I was looking at his Bankruptcies.

So today I ran a quick search of Bankruptcies with Trump names in it and I hit a Delaware case where both Ivanka and Donald were listed as Creditors.  As I poked around I saw the case has something to do with Carl Icahn. Remember the Trump administration early shake down from Icahn?  I think he was involved in a drive by insider trading scandal and was gone in day.  Anyway, I also found this old mortgage file.   I didn’t know where the collateral was.  So I used Google Earth to walk this description.
Continue reading

Supreme Court political report for Tuesday Feb. 27, 2019 opinions. @Maddow @lawrence

I prefer to report on SCOTUS from the perspective of Political Science rather than law. My first ConLaw class was as a political science major at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst taught by Professor Dean Alfange.  So my focus is always from the perspective of the Court as a political body.

I predicted based on simple political theory that Roberts would move to take the role previous relegated to Justice Kennedy. The Swing. Roberts is an institutionalist and intellectually not as conservative as he was marketed. IMO.

In any event, today was a fascinating day of SCOTUS cases. Three were filed.

1.   Jam et al. v. International Finance Corp. it may relate to the legal issues in the pending secret grand jury case. It deserves a look because if it is related “Kavanaugh took no part int he consideration or decision of the case.” Kavanaugh took no part in the case. I checked and he was on on the DC Circuit panel below. 

Held: The IOIA affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the FSIA. Pp. 6–15.

Key take:  Seven of the eight remaining justices agreed. Breyer dissented.  In an issue that may touch the Mueller grand jury case makes this significant IMO.

2.  Garza v. Idaho.  The case involves a competence of counsel defense to a plea waiver. I didn’t dig in but if you reduce it to simplest terms the liberals would have voted to reverse.

Key take:  Roberts again joins the liberals. But NB so did Kavanaugh!!!!!!!!!

Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined, and in which Alito, J., joined as to Parts I and II.

3. MADISON v. ALABAMA.  Case examines when a person is competent to be executed.

Key take:  Roberts again with the liberals.  And Kavanaugh took no role in the case.

Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Does that mean we may be seeking a six to three spit on these criminal cases?  We’ll see after Kavanaugh clears his recusal and is in every case from the start.

Here’s the LINK  to the three cases on the Cornell Law School site.