This info is taken from a twitter thread by Renato Mariotti (http://"https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/924991226008489984"). He's a candidate for Illinois Attorney General, formal federal prosecuter, and legal expert in media. Good info about indictments and how process works, + link to unsealed indictment of Manafort and Gates.
QuoteTHREAD: My very preliminary / initial thoughts on the indictment of Paul Manafort and Richard Gates.
1/ The indictment of Manafort and Gates was just unsealed. You can view it here: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download
2/ An indictment is a formal charge that has been approved on by a grand jury, which are a group ordinary citizens who hear evidence..
3/ In the United States, you have a constitutional right to be charged by indictment if you are being charged with a felony.
4/ The indictment charges Paul Manafort and Richard Gates with multiple felonies. A felony is a crime punishable by over a year in prison.
5/ The indictment charges the men with a number of different crimes. I'm going to walk through them in this thread.
6/ Indictments list the allegations that the government is making and the specific laws that have been violated.
7/ This indictment is something called a "speaking indictment" -- instead of just saying the charges, it lists specific factual allegations.
8/ Certain crimes (like conspiracy) require the government to explain exactly what the defendants did and what the conspiracy was about.
9/ Prosecutors gain a couple of advantages from charging crimes like conspiracy. First, they get to give the jury a road map of the case.
10/ The jury gets to bring the indictment back into the jury room when they deliberate after a trial.
11/ Conspiracy charges also let prosecutors bring in a broader range of activity into a single charge.
12/ Typically crimes involve a specific action or occur at a specific time. A conspiracy is an agreement to break the law and it is ongoing.
13/ So the first charge in this indictment is a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371. That is a general federal conspiracy statute.
14/ If two people agree to commit a federal law and take a concrete step towards doing so (called an overt act), they've violated 371.
15/ Here, Manafort and Gates are charged with agreeing to defeat the lawful functions of the United States.
16/ This is a common charge in tax cases--I charged this statute myself in a tax case. It means they worked together to undermine the IRS.
17/ For instance, when you go out of your way to hide money and affirmatively make it hard for the IRS to enforce the law against you.
18/ You can read more about the basis of the conspiracy charge by reading the parts of the indictment references in paragraphs 38 and 39.
19/ The second crime is a conspiracy (agreement) to launder money. That's when you move money in order to promote *another* crime.
20/ I've told you before that money laundering is a challenge to prove because you need to show that other crime happened. Mueller did that.
21/ The other crime (it's called "specified unlawful activity") is a failure to register as a foreign agent. More on that later.
22/ The next crime is only against Manafort for failure to file a statement with the Treasury Department disclosing foreign bank accounts.
23/ As we've discussed often, prosecutors like narrow charges like this because they're easy to prove. Either you disclosed or not, period.
24/ The next crime charged is against only Gates for essentially the same thing. Failing to disclose foreign bank accounts.
25/ The next count is for failing to register as a foreign agent. The law requires that anyone working in the U.S. as an agent of a foreign
26/ government must register with the Attorney General. This is another narrow crime that can be very straightforward to prove.
27/ (Registration is important so our government can monitor what foreign governments are doing within the United States.)
28/ The next crime (Count 11, p. 27) is one of the most important and revealing. This charges false and misleading registration statements.
29/ I don't have time to list the statements here, but Mueller is affirmatively alleging that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
30/ each one of those statements is false, which says something about the work that Manafort and Gates were doing and allegedly lied about.
31/ The next crime is just a different way of charging the same false statements, which are a violation of both statutes.
32/ Prosecutors sometimes charge the same crime multiple ways because what they have to prove under each statute is slightly different.
33/ The last part of the indictment is something called the "Forfeiture Allegation." If property is acquired from unlawful activity, or
34/ if it is used in unlawful activity, it can be "forfeited" (taken) by the federal government. That forfeiture has to be alleged too.
35/ Here the government lists various property that they will try to forfeit as well as "substitute property" that they can take if the
36/ listed property is no longer available because it was sold or transferred.
37/ I have many, many more thoughts on this indictment but this is a starting point. I will have more threads today and will be on TV a lot.
38/ I read your comments and questions, even if I can't respond to all of them, and I'll try to answer them later today. /end
George Papadopoulos Stipulation and Plea Agreement
https://www.lawfareblog.com/george-papadopoulos-stipulation-and-plea-agreement
Notable passages:
"In truth and in fact, however, and as set forth above, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for the first time on or about March 14, 2016, after defendant PAPADOPOULOS had already learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Campaign; the Professor showed interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS only after learning of his role on the Campaign; and the Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the Russians possessing" dirt" on then-candidate Clinton in late April 2016, more than a month after defendant PAPADOPOULOS had joined the Campaign."
"On or about April 26, 2016, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for breakfast at a London hotel. During this meeting, the Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian government officials. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained "dirt" on then-candidate Clinton. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS, as defendant PAPADOPOULOS later described to the FBI, that "They [the Russians] have dirt on her"; "the Russians had emails of Clinton"; "they have thousands of emails."
In other words, we now know:
1- "The Professor" only expressed interest in Papadopoulos AFTER it became clear that the latter would play a role in Trump campaign as a foreign policy adviser.
2- Papadopoulos lied about the timing of his interactions with "The Professor." Those lies were aimed at suggesting that interactions came BEFORE he was an adviser to the Trump campaign. In fact, those interactions occurred BECAUSE Papadopoulos worked for Trump.
3- Interactions occurred because of promise of "dirt" on Clinton by "The Professor".
4- Papadopoulos seems to have been cooperating with Mueller's investigation since July.
Trump may be able to dismiss Manafort with ease, but this one he will have a tough time with.
Here's to hoping they keep chipping away, until they can bring his entire world crashing around him. Trump is endemic of nearly everything wrong with American society, so it will be sweet justice to watch it all implode in his face and hopefully discourage others from being so much like him.
My only fear is if he ever learns that his business and his name are both going to disappear at best and become reviled at worst he will try to take everyone else out with him. He seems like just the spiteful asshole to do that, which is... not good, when you consider he is now the most powerful man in the world. I fear that he is just morally vapid enough to do so, and that his followers have been fed so much hate and anger that they can be tricked into going along with it.
It only takes one spark to light a fire, and when you consider the power he still wields as president sparks are the last thing you want.
Natasha - Hillary and Boris - Bill are done too. Every American can be bought, all are traitors.
Quote from: Baruch on October 30, 2017, 07:01:03 PM
Natasha - Hillary and Boris - Bill are done too. Every American can be bought, all are traitors.
Keep this thread void of conspiracy theories, and in strict adherence to the facts.
Cite your allegations please.
Manafort is facing a maximum sentence of 181 months. Gates is facing a maximum sentence of 151 months.
I wish I could hang out in Trump country to watch their brains melting downðŸ¤
Quote from: fencerider on October 31, 2017, 12:27:55 AM
Manafort is facing a maximum sentence of 181 months. Gates is facing a maximum sentence of 151 months.
I wish I could hang out in Trump country to watch their brains melting downðŸ¤
For treason, they should be praising every known god in existence that those numbers aren't the minimum mandatory.
Wonder when Gilga is going to pop in here to inform us this is all fake news, and Trump never did a wrong deed in his life...
Quote from: Baruch on October 30, 2017, 07:01:03 PM
Natasha - Hillary and Boris - Bill are done too. Every American can be bought, all are traitors.
They haven't tried to buy me yet, and no luck to them if they do. Failure, failure, failure. I don't have a price.
Quote from: Sylar on October 30, 2017, 11:49:16 PM
Keep this thread void of conspiracy theories, and in strict adherence to the facts.
Cite your allegations please.
Have you ever been to Washington DC? If not, you don't know it exists, for a fact ;-)
And I am sure, there will be many posts, of people here, who know insider CIA, on how the Republicans are Reptilians etc. Good luck keeping anything political, to the facts.
Quote from: fencerider on October 31, 2017, 12:27:55 AM
Manafort is facing a maximum sentence of 181 months. Gates is facing a maximum sentence of 151 months.
I wish I could hang out in Trump country to watch their brains melting downðŸ¤
Notice the non-fact of the OP title .. reads that Trump is indicted. Manafort may be guilty. And law may be applied selectively (seems undeniable). Nothing about D party actions in the Ukraine, or with Russia. Wonder why?
Quote from: Shiranu on October 31, 2017, 12:29:18 AM
For treason, they should be praising every known god in existence that those numbers aren't the minimum mandatory.
Wonder when Gilga is going to pop in here to inform us this is all fake news, and Trump never did a wrong deed in his life...
In Southern states, they have ridiculous long sentencing. But we only apply it to liberals and other damn yankees ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 01:02:07 AM
They haven't tried to buy me yet, and no luck to them if they do. Failure, failure, failure. I don't have a price.
You were a decent civil servant. Those exist, I know some. But neither of us function at the higher echelons. I didn't get one million dollar donations from Qatar.
Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 07:14:39 AM
You were a decent civil servant. Those exist, I know some. But neither of us function at the higher echelons. I didn't get one million dollar donations from Qatar.
I never suspected you did.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 08:34:58 AM
I never suspected you did.
Some facts .... a cast of bad characters with small degrees of separation
President - Donald Trump (NYC business tycoon)
Lobbyist and campaign manager for Donald Trump - Paul Manafort (associate of Tony Podesta)
Lobbyist - Tony Podesta (Podesta Group and brother of John Podesta)
President of Russia - Vladimir Putin (KGB and GQ model ;-)
Lobbyist and campaign manager for Hillary Clinton - John Podesta (Podesta Group and brother of Tony Podesta)
Former presidential candidate - Hillary Clinton (Carlyle Group)
Former President - Bill Clinton (Carlyle Group)
Former President - George H W Bush (Carlyle Group and CIA)
Former President - Barak Obama (former boss of Hillary Clinton)
These are all in the same mono-party ... Rape & Pillage Inc. Follow the money ... there is no such thing as art trading as money laundering, nor quid pro quo donations to the Clinton Foundation (Think of the Children).
Current evidence is that the Russians expected Hillary to win, and on FB etc did what they could to help her campaign indirectly, not help Donald She was plan A. Trump was plan B. But either way the Deep State has told Trump how to do things, and so far, he is doing it. The Russians are guilty of not interfering enough, because with President Hillary, you would never hear of Uranium One.
Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
Some facts .... a cast of bad characters with small degrees of separation
President - Donald Trump (NYC business tycoon)
Lobbyist and campaign manager for Donald Trump - Paul Manafort (associate of Tony Podesta)
Lobbyist - Tony Podesta (Podesta Group and brother of John Podesta)
President of Russia - Vladimir Putin (KGB and GQ model ;-)
Lobbyist and campaign manager for Hillary Clinton - John Podesta (Podesta Group and brother of Tony Podesta)
Former presidential candidate - Hillary Clinton (Carlyle Group)
Former President - Bill Clinton (Carlyle Group)
Former President - George H W Bush (Carlyle Group and CIA)
Former President - Barak Obama (former boss of Hillary Clinton)
These are all in the same mono-party ... Rape & Pillage Inc. Follow the money ... there is no such thing as art trading as money laundering, nor quid pro quo donations to the Clinton Foundation (Think of the Children).
Current evidence is that the Russians expected Hillary to win, and on FB etc did what they could to help her campaign indirectly, not help Donald She was plan A. Trump was plan B. But either way the Deep State has told Trump how to do things, and so far, he is doing it. The Russians are guilty of not interfering enough, because with President Hillary, you would never hear of Uranium One.
When you can only condemn Obama as "former boss of Hillary Clinton", you are really digging to the bottom of the barrel there. LOL!
Name a country that wouldn't prefer Clinton has either Sec of State or President right now. Aside from Iraq, N Korea, Russia, and China, of course. THEY love tRump and Tillersoneeyore ...
And for very good reasons. ;)
Quote from: fencerider on October 31, 2017, 12:27:55 AM
Manafort is facing a maximum sentence of 181 months. Gates is facing a maximum sentence of 151 months.
I wish I could hang out in Trump country to watch their brains melting downðŸ¤
Which is why I think they may accept a plea deal and become state witness against Trump.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 30, 2017, 06:52:26 PM
Here's to hoping they keep chipping away, until they can bring his entire world crashing around him. Trump is endemic of nearly everything wrong with American society, so it will be sweet justice to watch it all implode in his face and hopefully discourage others from being so much like him.
My only fear is if he ever learns that his business and his name are both going to disappear at best and become reviled at worst he will try to take everyone else out with him. He seems like just the spiteful asshole to do that, which is... not good, when you consider he is now the most powerful man in the world. I fear that he is just morally vapid enough to do so, and that his followers have been fed so much hate and anger that they can be tricked into going along with it.
It only takes one spark to light a fire, and when you consider the power he still wields as president sparks are the last thing you want.
With Republican refusal to protect Mueller from Trump, the only thing to fear is WH interference in judicial system (which is unconstitutional).
I am not afraid of Trump taking us all out -- I am willing to bet there's at least one secret service agent who would rather shoot the president than watch his family parish. Besides, aren't the nuke codes divided between president and two others?
Quote from: Sylar on October 31, 2017, 02:21:25 PM
Which is why I think they may accept a plea deal and become state witness against Trump.
Well, that IS the usual pattern. Spend a few months at a federal "spa" campus or spend 5-10 at Leavenworth (or whatever the equivalent is today)... If that doesn't get at the truth, nothing will. And BTW. some charges can be brought to State courts where the Trumpster can't give a pardon.
Quote from: Sylar on October 31, 2017, 02:28:55 PM
With Republican refusal to protect Mueller from Trump, the only thing to fear is WH interference in judicial system (which is unconstitutional).
I am not afraid of Trump taking us all out -- I am willing to bet there's at least one secret service agent who would rather shoot the president than watch his family parish. Besides, aren't the nuke codes divided between president and two others?
I am also sure that Trump can't actually pull the trigger...
Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 07:11:02 AM
Have you ever been to Washington DC? If not, you don't know it exists, for a fact ;-)
And I am sure, there will be many posts, of people here, who know insider CIA, on how the Republicans are Reptilians etc. Good luck keeping anything political, to the facts.
My post seems to call you out and I didn't intend to do that, so I apologize.
There is a degree of accuracy that we should strive for. Allegations and rumors are ubiquitous in the media, and they must be distinguished from factual information.
Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 07:12:41 AM
Notice the non-fact of the OP title .. reads that Trump is indicted. Manafort may be guilty. And law may be applied selectively (seems undeniable). Nothing about D party actions in the Ukraine, or with Russia. Wonder why?
Bad reading Baruch. The title says "Indictments in Mueller Probe of Trump-Russia Collusion". Nothing in the indictments accused Trump, just that the purpose of the investigation is to explore a possible collusion.
But that IS how Trump argues about it. Just please don't make the same pretzelly claim. You know better.
Quote from: Sylar on October 31, 2017, 02:21:25 PM
Which is why I think they may accept a plea deal and become state witness against Trump.
Ah yes, give a deal to the guy who shot the bank guard, and give the guy in the getaway war ... the death penalty?
None of these people will serve time ... they will either be found not guilty or Arkansided.
Quote from: Sylar on October 31, 2017, 02:37:28 PM
My post seems to call you out and I didn't intend to do that, so I apologize.
There is a degree of accuracy that we should strive for. Allegations and rumors are ubiquitous in the media, and they must be distinguished from factual information.
I didn't take it personally. Fortunately there are quite a few facts about this case ... and perhaps more indictments. I will cry a very small tear for any Republican or Democrat who goes to jail, even at a spa, for even one day ... sob!
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 02:47:54 PM
Bad reading Baruch. The title says "Indictments in Mueller Probe of Trump-Russia Collusion". Nothing in the indictments accused Trump, just that the purpose of the investigation is to explore a possible collusion.
But that IS how Trump argues about it. Just please don't make the same pretzelly claim. You know better.
OK, he made an uncritical copy of a newspaper-like headline. How about "Bat boy bites Obama, gives him rabies". All headlines are legitimate, even more than the bird-cage print under the headline ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 07:12:41 AM
Notice the non-fact of the OP title .. reads that Trump is indicted. Manafort may be guilty. And law may be applied selectively (seems undeniable). Nothing about D party actions in the Ukraine, or with Russia. Wonder why?
You misread the title. The title reads:
"
Indictments in Mueller Probe of Trump-Russia Collusion"
The first part of the sentence -- "Indictments in..." -- means that indictments were issued as part of something (that follows in second part of the sentence). The indictments and plea deal have been cited in the OP and subsequent post, and you may read and view them yourself, then form your own opinion.
The second part of the sentence -- "...Mueller Probe of Trump-Russia Collusion" -- is self-explanatory. That is exactly what Mueller is doing; he's investigating Trump for colluding with the Russians. That is a
fact, not an opinion, and here's the evidence: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Since the topic of this thread is as described above, why would there be any mention of "D party actions in the Ukraine, or with Russia"? Feel free to open another thread to discuss those allegations, and be prepared to cite the facts as I did.
I see indictments of two men, not Trump. Trump may be indicted, but not yet. As an insider of the Mueller investigation, please tell us more inside truth ;-)
Quote from: fencerider on October 31, 2017, 12:27:55 AM
Manafort is facing a maximum sentence of 181 months. Gates is facing a maximum sentence of 151 months.
I wish I could hang out in Trump country to watch their brains melting downðŸ¤
What brains?
Who cares if Trump enlisted the Russians to help him win the election? It's a free country.
We sure don't want Muslims running the place, but the Russians are actually helping, and even if they intend to be destructive, the overall result is positive. So I say let them interfere all they want. They gave us a president who actually cares for once, a man who knows how to get things done, a man of deep reflection and keen insight with a brilliant mind who wants to keep us safe from the Mexicans. I simply don't understand all this fuss.
Quote from: SGOS on November 02, 2017, 08:47:19 AM
Who cares if Trump enlisted the Russians to help him win the election? It's a free country.
We sure don't want Muslims running the place, but the Russians are actually helping, and even if they intend to be destructive, the overall result is positive. So I say let them interfere all they want. They gave us a president who actually cares for once, a man who knows how to get things done, a man of deep reflection and keen insight with a brilliant mind who wants to keep us safe from the Mexicans. I simply don't understand all this fuss.
How did you know what I was thinking?????
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 02, 2017, 10:04:18 AM
How did you know what I was thinking?????
Well, anyone who isn't in a coma knows what I'm talkin' about.
I'm a little surprised that Mueller is filing charges this early; I didn't really expect anything until spring 2018. Considering who Manafort not only is, but has been -- delegate hunt coordinator in several states in the Ford nomination campaign in '76, head of Reagan's southern campaign in '80, deputy political director of the GOP, adviser to both the Bush Sr and Dole campaigns -- he's not someone to be indicted lightly, least of all with the raft of charges brought by the grand jury. I'm inclined to think Mueller is hoping that either Manafort or Gates will turn and plea out like Papadopoulos did.
Also, if he's got enough to get indictments this soon, that also suggests Manafort, Papadopoulous, Gates et al. were sloppy, or genuinely thought they were above the law and could do any damn thing they pleased, or both.
Should be an interesting ride from here on out.
Quote from: trdsf on November 02, 2017, 01:54:30 PMAlso, if he's got enough to get indictments this soon, that also suggests Manafort, Papadopoulous, Gates et al. were sloppy, or genuinely thought they were above the law and could do any damn thing they pleased, or both.
Reportedly, Papadopoulous dropped $900k at a rug store over the course of two years. So a combination of the above seems likely.
Quote from: SGOS on November 02, 2017, 08:47:19 AM
Who cares if Trump enlisted the Russians to help him win the election? It's a free country.
We sure don't want Muslims running the place, but the Russians are actually helping, and even if they intend to be destructive, the overall result is positive. So I say let them interfere all they want. They gave us a president who actually cares for once, a man who knows how to get things done, a man of deep reflection and keen insight with a brilliant mind who wants to keep us safe from the Mexicans. I simply don't understand all this fuss.
If for one, don't want Americans tampering in any American election. Don't let them vote at all. Let Madrid not only take over Catalonia, but the US as well. Viva Madrid!
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 01, 2017, 11:33:46 PM
What brains?
I think
Duck Dynasty called them squirrel brains
Quote from: SGOS on November 02, 2017, 08:47:19 AM
Who cares if Trump enlisted the Russians to help him win the election? It's a free country.
We sure don't want Muslims running the place, but the Russians are actually helping, and even if they intend to be destructive, the overall result is positive. So I say let them interfere all they want. They gave us a president who actually cares for once, a man who knows how to get things done, a man of deep reflection and keen insight with a brilliant mind who wants to keep us safe from the Mexicans. I simply don't understand all this fuss.
that is some serious sarcasm ðŸ˜
The man sure knows how to get things done. Trump hired:
A Doctor to run a housing agency
A Tv talk show host as head scientist of USDA
A bartender as a Congressional liason
A candle maker as a confident in USDA
A car rental manager as a confident in USDA
Quote from: trdsf on November 02, 2017, 01:54:30 PM
I'm a little surprised that Mueller is filing charges this early; I didn't really expect anything until spring 2018. Considering who Manafort not only is, but has been -- delegate hunt coordinator in several states in the Ford nomination campaign in '76, head of Reagan's southern campaign in '80, deputy political director of the GOP, adviser to both the Bush Sr and Dole campaigns -- he's not someone to be indicted lightly, least of all with the raft of charges brought by the grand jury. I'm inclined to think Mueller is hoping that either Manafort or Gates will turn and plea out like Papadopoulos did.
Also, if he's got enough to get indictments this soon, that also suggests Manafort, Papadopoulous, Gates et al. were sloppy, or genuinely thought they were above the law and could do any damn thing they pleased, or both.
Should be an interesting ride from here on out.
Perhaps it's a threat; even if we cant find collusion with Russia, we will get you for financial misconduct and Al Capone your ass. And god knows Trump is going to be guilty of at least a little bit of financial shenanigans.
If there is one thing the government truly has moral opposition to, it's not getting it's fair share of the profits. I think this is both to get some plea bargains that incriminate Trump, and to get Trump sweating as the noose get's tighter and tighter around his neck. He wanted the spotlight... well, he got it, and now it's getting warmer by the day.
Quote from: fencerider on November 03, 2017, 01:14:53 AM
that is some serious sarcasm ðŸ˜
The man sure knows how to get things done. Trump hired:
A Doctor to run a housing agency
A Tv talk show host as head scientist of USDA
A bartender as a Congressional liason
A candle maker as a confident in USDA
A car rental manager as a confident in USDA
Dustbin much? I can't wait for the NorK EMP ... to destroy US infrastructure, leading to Agenda 21. Oswald was a patsy, so is Kim Jong Un.
Quote from: fencerider on November 03, 2017, 01:05:49 AM
I think Duck Dynasty called them squirrel brains
Never watched DD--but squirrels are smarter than that. Snake brains?
Nowhere in the indictment do we see any collusion between Trump and 'the russians'.
Everything in the indictment is money laundering/tax evasion and attempts to avoid being called a lobbyist for foreign govs. Quite a paper trail that does NOT tie into Trump, with dates revealed being long before Trump began his campaign and/or long before Manafort became associated with the Trump campaign.
Conspiracy charges are legal puffery. 99% of ALL crimes committed began as a conspiracy. Once someone launders money or fails to file a form as required, it is no longer a conspiracy, but an action.
And I sure don't understand tax law on this level, foreign money, international business, etc. I have no idea if Mueller overlooked a bunch of caveats in the tax laws to bring such charges. One would think Manafort would be smart enough to cover his ass, but arrogance is often a corrupter of intelligence, so, maybe he just plain f-ed up. I dont care if he spends a bunch of time behind bars for tax laws, good, I am sick of the rich avoiding taxes. Fair enough. If he paid back the loans and didnt file bankruptcy, I really dont care if he lied to get a better interest rate/higher loan.
However, it is a pretty pitiful government overthrow attempt when the greatest hope lies within a jailhouse snitch. What could possibly go wrong when there is a motivation for people (who lie) to lie some more to do the job for Mueller?
Quote from: Shiranu on November 03, 2017, 02:10:50 AM
Perhaps it's a threat; even if we cant find collusion with Russia, we will get you for financial misconduct and Al Capone your ass. And god knows Trump is going to be guilty of at least a little bit of financial shenanigans.
If there is one thing the government truly has moral opposition to, it's not getting it's fair share of the profits. I think this is both to get some plea bargains that incriminate Trump, and to get Trump sweating as the noose get's tighter and tighter around his neck. He wanted the spotlight... well, he got it, and now it's getting warmer by the day.
And that's entirely possible, although he's reached really high, really quickly. Then again, Dean was coöperating with the Watergate investigators by April of 1973. Sadly, I don't think the Senate GOP has a Howard Baker these days, although I could be surprised.
QuoteNowhere in the indictment do we see any collusion between Trump and 'the russians'.
Probably because that's not the point of the indictment, nor was it marketed by the prosecution as being so.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 03, 2017, 08:21:37 PM
Probably because that's not the point of the indictment, nor was it marketed by the prosecution as being so.
Permanent star chamber .. starting with the Ken Starr committee investigating Bill Clinton. That would have kept a lot of this from happening. All politicians are assumed guilty ... and they have to prove themselves innocent, every day.
Trumpsters when Clinton's being investigated by the feds: "Lock her up! Lock her up!"
Trumpsters when Trump's being investigated by the feds: "These charges are legal puffery. Snitches be lyin'. What a pitiful government overthrow attempt!"
Quote from: chill98 on November 03, 2017, 01:21:00 PM
Nowhere in the indictment do we see any collusion between Trump and 'the russians'.
Everything in the indictment is money laundering/tax evasion and attempts to avoid being called a lobbyist for foreign govs. Quite a paper trail that does NOT tie into Trump, with dates revealed being long before Trump began his campaign and/or long before Manafort became associated with the Trump campaign.
Conspiracy charges are legal puffery. 99% of ALL crimes committed began as a conspiracy. Once someone launders money or fails to file a form as required, it is no longer a conspiracy, but an action.
And I sure don't understand tax law on this level, foreign money, international business, etc. I have no idea if Mueller overlooked a bunch of caveats in the tax laws to bring such charges. One would think Manafort would be smart enough to cover his ass, but arrogance is often a corrupter of intelligence, so, maybe he just plain f-ed up. I dont care if he spends a bunch of time behind bars for tax laws, good, I am sick of the rich avoiding taxes. Fair enough. If he paid back the loans and didnt file bankruptcy, I really dont care if he lied to get a better interest rate/higher loan.
However, it is a pretty pitiful government overthrow attempt when the greatest hope lies within a jailhouse snitch. What could possibly go wrong when there is a motivation for people (who lie) to lie some more to do the job for Mueller?
Perhaps the point is ... we know that all the rich folk, including Trump, have committed many white collar crimes, even before entering the White House. They may not get him on something he did after election, but they can pull him in, anytime, for what happened before the election, in his business interests.
Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2017, 08:26:12 PM
Perhaps the point is ... we know that all the rich folk, including Trump, have committed many white collar crimes, even before entering the White House. They may not get him on something he did after election, but they can pull him in, anytime, for what happened before the election, in his business interests.
Well we are still waiting for something like that, aren't we?
And I repeat, there is NOTHING in this indictment to indicate any kind of wrong doing by Trump (or Manafort/Gates) in relation to the election and russian collusion.
Quote from: chill98 on November 03, 2017, 09:05:23 PM
Well we are still waiting for something like that, aren't we?
And I repeat, there is NOTHING in this indictment to indicate any kind of wrong doing by Trump (or Manafort/Gates) in relation to the election and russian collusion.
I repeat my previous post that this has nothing to do with any wrong doing by Trump, and expand upon it by asking if you heard there was a 3rd person indited who claims to have Russian connections during his time with the Trump campaign.
I didn't bring it up last time because I think he is full of shit and didn't actually have connections, but the way you have gone out of your way to act like he doesn't exist two posts in a row now seems a bit suspect.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 03, 2017, 08:24:45 PM
Trumpsters when Clinton's being investigated by the feds: "Lock her up! Lock her up!"
Trumpsters when Trump's being investigated by the feds: "These charges are legal puffery. Snitches be lyin'. What a pitiful government overthrow attempt!"
Pretty much. The GOP is defined by profound hypocrisy. There's a reason 'IOKIYAR' is a recognized acronym, and 'IOKIYAD' is not.
Quote from: SGOS on November 02, 2017, 08:47:19 AM
Who cares if Trump enlisted the Russians to help him win the election? It's a free country.
We sure don't want Muslims running the place, but the Russians are actually helping, and even if they intend to be destructive, the overall result is positive. So I say let them interfere all they want. They gave us a president who actually cares for once, a man who knows how to get things done, a man of deep reflection and keen insight with a brilliant mind who wants to keep us safe from the Mexicans. I simply don't understand all this fuss.
There are laws against enlisting foreign governments in US elections. Per The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) "Foreign nationals, other than lawful permanent residents, are completely banned from donating to candidates or parties, or making independent expenditures in federal, state or local elections."
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2017, 11:19:07 PM
There are laws against enlisting foreign governments in US elections. Per The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) "Foreign nationals, other than lawful permanent residents, are completely banned from donating to candidates or parties, or making independent expenditures in federal, state or local elections."
We do it all the time in foreign elections, and they do it in ours. But the Russian support for Hillary wasn't decisive. The actual evidence says that they were supporting her, not Donald. Most of our laws are inoperative ... because they either can't be enforced, or there isn't enough agreement on them to make them real. War on drugs much?
Quote from: chill98 on November 03, 2017, 09:05:23 PM
Well we are still waiting for something like that, aren't we?
And I repeat, there is NOTHING in this indictment to indicate any kind of wrong doing by Trump (or Manafort/Gates) in relation to the election and russian collusion.
My point is ... he is guilty of something, we all are. And with selective enforcement of the law, the devil is in play, all the time. Did any of the Goldman-Sachs guys serve time for 2007-2008?
Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2017, 11:51:41 PM
We do it all the time in foreign elections, and they do it in ours. But the Russian support for Hillary wasn't decisive. The actual evidence says that they were supporting her, not Donald. Most of our laws are inoperative ... because they either can't be enforced, or there isn't enough agreement on them to make them real. War on drugs much?
There is a difference between the governments seeking to provide information or disinformation to foreign people and US politicians seeking assistance from foreign govts. The first is legal and the latter is not.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2017, 11:58:29 PM
There is a difference between the governments seeking to provide information or disinformation to foreign people and US politicians seeking assistance from foreign govts. The first is legal and the latter is not.
A distinction that doesn't matter. Ape men have no business writing laws. Only throwing poo. Not that I disapprove ... since we live in a dystopia ... I say, the more hell we raise the better.
Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2017, 11:53:09 PM
My point is ... he is guilty of something, we all are. And with selective enforcement of the law, the devil is in play, all the time. Did any of the Goldman-Sachs guys serve time for 2007-2008?
Weren't they given jobs as government officials in charge of all the money? I can't keep them all straight anymore. Never could before either. They might have been recruited from other investment banks with two names. But they became advisors to our elected leaders, and when it came time to fix the crisis, not surprisingly their solution was to give money to the remaining banks. They called it a bail out.
But the people who lost their life savings or their homes, were thrown to the wolves as they should have been for believing the bankers weren't fucking them over by selling them worthless bonds (triple AAA rate no less), or loaning them adjustable rate mortgages on artificially inflated homes they were destined to default on.
After reviewing additional information and commentaries, I must rethink my position on the validity of some of the charges, specifically, money laundering.
Money Laundering is taking moneys made via committing a crime and making it appear to be legit. What the commentaries are saying is, the payment of the money was not for a criminal act and this statue will not apply. Within the indictment itself we see Manafort/Gates hired 3rd party companies to represent the Ukraine (not russia) for (as I understand it) the lobbying activities.
Which brings into question (in my mind) whether Manafort/Gates needed to register as FARA.
Quote from: Reuters...The section cited by Mueller requires the FARA violation to be “knowing and willful.â€
Successfully casting doubt on whether Manafort intentionally violated FARA could knock out the money laundering charge, Lee said.
“If you don’t have a (specific unlawful activity), you can’t by definition have a laundering,†said Lee.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort-analysis/manafort-money-laundering-charge-in-russia-probe-may-face-challenges-idUSKBN1D401WThe other character involved is papalopos (sp?). The sketch coming out of some commentaries on this character paint the picture much differently. Papaloopos (whatever) was an unpaid volunteer with no access, not even a key card to get into the office. Anyways, the picture being painted is this person is a nobody, who wanted to be somebody, and has a habit of greatly exaggerating his worth/connections/work experience.
And finally, it was pointed out that while tax evasion was hinted at in the indictment, there are no charges of tax evasion. It is not illegal to have money off shore, it is not illegal to transfer money off shore into other off shore accounts and I had already noticed these were LLC's, which are separate from individual tax filings, so there may be great doubt as to whether or not there is any tax evasion, or much less evasion than the indictment would lead someone to believe.
Quote from: SGOS on November 04, 2017, 11:19:22 AM
Weren't they given jobs as government officials in charge of all the money? I can't keep them all straight anymore. Never could before either. They might have been recruited from other investment banks with two names. But they became advisors to our elected leaders, and when it came time to fix the crisis, not surprisingly their solution was to give money to the remaining banks. They called it a bail out.
But the people who lost their life savings or their homes, were thrown to the wolves as they should have been for believing the bankers weren't fucking them over by selling them worthless bonds (triple AAA rate no less), or loaning them adjustable rate mortgages on artificially inflated homes they were destined to default on.
Correct. The bankers (not just Goldman-Sachs) pulled a "savings & loan" but it was even bigger, and they were allowed to get away with it. The scandal keeps on giving. All the losses that banks and big investors (including your pension plan) should have taken in 2008-2009 ... is going to be paid for by the tax payers. The crooked or duped investors, got covered. The bankers got covered as well. 14 trillion was added to the national debt of the US .. who will pay? Guess who ;-(
And the bankers continue to infest the government at all levels, they have since 1913. The Treasury Dept is just as much captive as the SEC.
Quote from: chill98 on November 04, 2017, 12:43:58 PM
After reviewing additional information and commentaries, I must rethink my position on the validity of some of the charges, specifically, money laundering.
Money Laundering is taking moneys made via committing a crime and making it appear to be legit. What the commentaries are saying is, the payment of the money was not for a criminal act and this statue will not apply. Within the indictment itself we see Manafort/Gates hired 3rd party companies to represent the Ukraine (not russia) for (as I understand it) the lobbying activities.
Which brings into question (in my mind) whether Manafort/Gates needed to register as FARA.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort-analysis/manafort-money-laundering-charge-in-russia-probe-may-face-challenges-idUSKBN1D401W
The other character involved is papalopos (sp?). The sketch coming out of some commentaries on this character paint the picture much differently. Papaloopos (whatever) was an unpaid volunteer with no access, not even a key card to get into the office. Anyways, the picture being painted is this person is a nobody, who wanted to be somebody, and has a habit of greatly exaggerating his worth/connections/work experience.
And finally, it was pointed out that while tax evasion was hinted at in the indictment, there are no charges of tax evasion. It is not illegal to have money off shore, it is not illegal to transfer money off shore into other off shore accounts and I had already noticed these were LLC's, which are separate from individual tax filings, so there may be great doubt as to whether or not there is any tax evasion, or much less evasion than the indictment would lead someone to believe.
George Papadopoulos ... a patsy at the lowest level. He will be thrown under the bus. That is why it is necessary to keep patsies around. "Honest, judge, it was that crooked cleaning lady!".
chill98 why are you trying so hard to defend Trump? He’s not worth defending.
The special prosecutor is an expert in legal investigations. He would not be indicting people on charges that would not stand up in court. As for your other questions Mueller hasnt finished the investigation yet. The purpose of the investigation is to find out if there was any collusion. When he gets the answer the investigation will be closed. The reason Manafort got in trouble for things that happened before the election was because they were uncovered in the investigation. If Trump did something illegal before running for president it may be uncovered as well ( running for president was a seriously stupid thing to do if Trump has crimes to hide). We al have to wait for Mueller to finish to know. It would be nice if he would hurry up.
Quote from: fencerider on November 05, 2017, 04:10:26 AM
chill98 why are you trying so hard to defend Trump? He’s not worth defending.
The special prosecutor is an expert in legal investigations. He would not be indicting people on charges that would not stand up in court. As for your other questions Mueller hasnt finished the investigation yet. The purpose of the investigation is to find out if there was any collusion. When he gets the answer the investigation will be closed. The reason Manafort got in trouble for things that happened before the election was because they were uncovered in the investigation. If Trump did something illegal before running for president it may be uncovered as well ( running for president was a seriously stupid thing to do if Trump has crimes to hide). We al have to wait for Mueller to finish to know. It would be nice if he would hurry up.
Like the Starr investigation and the Bengazi investigation, this will go on for the next 3 years at least.
Quote from: fencerider on November 05, 2017, 04:10:26 AM
chill98 why are you trying so hard to defend Trump? He’s not worth defending.
The special prosecutor is an expert in legal investigations. He would not be indicting people on charges that would not stand up in court.
The purpose of the investigation is to find out if there was any collusion. When he gets the answer the investigation will be closed.
The reason Manafort got in trouble for things that happened before the election was because they were uncovered in the investigation.
If Trump did something illegal before running for president it may be uncovered as well ( running for president was a seriously stupid thing to do if Trump has crimes to hide).
We al have to wait for Mueller to finish to know. It would be nice if he would hurry up.
What a disjointed response!
1. Trump wasnt defended in my responses to the
Inquisition err.. I mean indictment.
2. And the cops would never arrest an innocent person... omg, I cannot believe you are that naive. Prosecutors hide evidence ALL the TIME showing a person was innocent of a crime. And a Grand Jury is not able to hear the whole story. It is where a prosecutor paints a picture.
3. And this indictment has exactly ~zero~ bearing on the collusion aspect, Muellers real point of being involved.
4. See my previous post. There is already great doubt on the validity of Muellers interpretation.
5. Again, see a previous post. NONE of that is apparent in this indictment. NONE of that is HINTED at in this indictment.
6. Your point is unrelated to the topic, the current indictment against Manafort/Gates.
Edit to add this link:
Quote from: link belowFormer federal prosecutor Sidney Powell was so outraged by Weissmann’s alleged unethical tactics that she filed ethics complaints against him in Texas and Washington in 2012. She alleged witness threatening, withholding exculpatory evidence and, ironically, in light of the Manafort controversy, the use of “false and misleading summaries.†The use of Manafort’s own lawyer as a witness against him presents a particularly chilling tactic for counsel and their clients.
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/11/03/a-question-of-privilege-how-mueller-used-manaforts-own-lawyer-as-a-witness-against-him/comment-page-1/
Quote from: chill98 on November 05, 2017, 11:33:50 AM
What a disjointed response!
1. Trump wasnt defended in my responses to the Inquisition err.. I mean indictment.
2. And the cops would never arrest an innocent person... omg, I cannot believe you are that naive. Prosecutors hide evidence ALL the TIME showing a person was innocent of a crime. And a Grand Jury is not able to hear the whole story. It is where a prosecutor paints a picture.
3. And this indictment has exactly ~zero~ bearing on the collusion aspect, Muellers real point of being involved.
4. See my previous post. There is already great doubt on the validity of Muellers interpretation.
5. Again, see a previous post. NONE of that is apparent in this indictment. NONE of that is HINTED at in this indictment.
6. Your point is unrelated to the topic, the current indictment against Manafort/Gates.
Edit to add this link:
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/11/03/a-question-of-privilege-how-mueller-used-manaforts-own-lawyer-as-a-witness-against-him/comment-page-1/
I really appreciate having a Trump shill on the board. It simply reminds me how crass and stupid his followers really are. I'm a little surprised this guy isn't a theist as well.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 05, 2017, 12:43:56 PM
I really appreciate having a Trump shill on the board. It simply reminds me how crass and stupid his followers really are. I'm a little surprised this guy isn't a theist as well.
Don't think you are any better. Partisanship is bi ... but not bi-sexual. I look forward to the FEMA camps.
Quote from: chill98 on November 05, 2017, 11:33:50 AM
What a disjointed response!
1. Trump wasnt defended in my responses to the Inquisition err.. I mean indictment.
2. And the cops would never arrest an innocent person... omg, I cannot believe you are that naive. Prosecutors hide evidence ALL the TIME showing a person was innocent of a crime. And a Grand Jury is not able to hear the whole story. It is where a prosecutor paints a picture.
3. And this indictment has exactly ~zero~ bearing on the collusion aspect, Muellers real point of being involved.
4. See my previous post. There is already great doubt on the validity of Muellers interpretation.
5. Again, see a previous post. NONE of that is apparent in this indictment. NONE of that is HINTED at in this indictment.
6. Your point is unrelated to the topic, the current indictment against Manafort/Gates.
Edit to add this link:
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/11/03/a-question-of-privilege-how-mueller-used-manaforts-own-lawyer-as-a-witness-against-him/comment-page-1/
Leak - indictments leaked by Mueller ... that Gen Flynn and his son are next in the docket. But attack DoD at your peril. Can FBI or CIA stop an US Army brigade?
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 05, 2017, 12:43:56 PM
I really appreciate having a Trump shill on the board. It simply reminds me how crass and stupid his followers really are. I'm a little surprised this guy isn't a theist as well.
If you had a rebuttal for my post(s) you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominem.
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2017, 01:52:09 PM
Leak - indictments leaked by Mueller ... that Gen Flynn and his son are next in the docket. But attack DoD at your peril. Can FBI or CIA stop an US Army brigade?
I saw the intellihub video
Losing your religion yet?
Quote from: chill98 on November 05, 2017, 06:16:22 PM
I saw the intellihub video
Losing your religion yet?
Like "Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion" is real? I know it is fake for many years now. Not losing my religion, losing my lunch (urk). But then you shouldn't eat a sausage while watching a video of it being made. Politics is like that.
Quote from: chill98 on November 05, 2017, 03:16:14 PM
If you had a rebuttal for my post(s) you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominem.
You have amply indicated that you have no reading comprehension. That you have you nose up trump's ass, demonstrates you have no values or ethics or code of conduct. You love to serve and protect your hero who has shown time and again that he does not know the truth from a lie; he cares nothing for those he does business with (his over 2,000 suits against him by those who have worked for him); his life is devoted to his wealth and the wealth of his family; he demands loyalty, but shows none; he is racist and fascist/nationalist--our country is much, much poorer in about every sense since his reign began. If you follow a man such as this, then you are simply stupid beyond belief and reflect your total lack of ethics.
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2017, 06:31:43 PM
Like "Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion" is real? I know it is fake for many years now. Not losing my religion, losing my lunch (urk). But then you shouldn't eat a sausage while watching a video of it being made. Politics is like that.
scoff...
Its real, just like 1984. Different shades of Antifa masks. oh wait, protocol demands color blindness.
Religion, lunch, politics, regardless one is left with a bitter taste eh?
however, as a side note, Donnas new book, 1st edition, may become a collectors item. Get her to sign it now!
Quote from: chill98 on November 05, 2017, 07:27:41 PM
scoff...
Its real, just like 1984. Different shades of Antifa masks. oh wait, protocol demands color blindness.
Religion, lunch, politics, regardless one is left with a bitter taste eh?
however, as a side note, Donnas new book, 1st edition, may become a collectors item. Get her to sign it now!
Too bad the Arkanside team might not let her enjoy the royalties. She is already recanting.
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2017, 07:30:55 PM
Too bad the Arkanside team might not let her enjoy the royalties. She is already recanting.
Which is why she must sign the book now! Nothing like a profit before the body is cold...
Her lawyers must have celebrated their good fortune!
No one is guilty before a conviction.
But the evidence is mounting against many Trump campaign and administration people. The smaller fish will rat on the bigger fish and the bigger fish will rat on the "Top Rat Until Mueller Prosecutes" (TRUMP).
I suspect the Mueller indictments are the "End of the Beginning" for Trump.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mueller-has-enough-evidence-bring-charges-flynn-investigation-n817666
QuoteWASHINGTON â€" Federal investigators have gathered enough evidence to bring charges in their investigation of President Donald Trump's former national security adviser and his son as part of the probe into Russia's intervention in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation.
Michael T. Flynn, who was fired after just 24 days on the job, was one of the first Trump associates to come under scrutiny in the federal probe now led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign.
Ruh roh, Chili.
Just as Nixon could not be impeached before Agnew was removed as VP, I think it might required for Pence to resign before Trump can be removed from office. In some ways, Pence might be worse than Trump.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 02:07:35 AM
No one is guilty before a conviction.
But the evidence is mounting against many Trump campaign and administration people. The smaller fish will rat on the bigger fish and the bigger fish will rat on the "Top Rat Until Mueller Prosecutes" (TRUMP).
I suspect the Mueller indictments are the "End of the Beginning" for Trump.
Of course they are. In politics, they are even guilty before they are born. Jason Bourne that is ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 07:11:37 AM
Of course they are. In politics, they are even guilty before they are born. Jason Bourne that is ;-)
OK, you are just getting stupid again. No one is guilty before they are born.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 04:46:56 AM
Just as Nixon could not be impeached before Agnew was removed as VP, I think it might required for Pence to resign before Trump can be removed from office. In some ways, Pence might be worse than Trump.
Well, to give the devil his due (so to speak), Agnew was a crook, and Pence is not. And he is worse than Trump in the sense that he would be capable of getting his christofascist agenda implemented, at least in part. We saw him do that in Indiana, and I don't want to see that done in the rest of the country.
The inoculation here is a Democratic House and Senate in 2018 -- a big ask given the situation in the Senate and the gerrymandering in the House, but not impossible.
Quote from: trdsf on November 07, 2017, 11:45:47 AM
Well, to give the devil his due (so to speak), Agnew was a crook, and Pence is not. And he is worse than Trump in the sense that he would be capable of getting his christofascist agenda implemented, at least in part. We saw him do that in Indiana, and I don't want to see that done in the rest of the country.
The inoculation here is a Democratic House and Senate in 2018 -- a big ask given the situation in the Senate and the gerrymandering in the House, but not impossible.
My thoughts and fears exactly...
Chili if you think my response was disjointed it may be because of the time 1:30am when I made the post.
The point being that Manafort is not the completion of Mueller’s actions. He hasn’t said everything he knows. Nor has he even finished investigating. It’s way too early to say Trump is innocent.
The only way to change the make up of Congress is for people in republican territory to change their minds about their reps. The only way they will be convinced to change their minds is if they stop watching Fox Entertainment. fat chance of that... (never mind the fact that a Florida Fox affiliate was given the right to lie on the air by the Supreme Court in 2003)
Quote from: fencerider on November 11, 2017, 12:39:41 PM
Chili if you think my response was disjointed it may be because of the time 1:30am when I made the post.
The point being that Manafort is not the completion of Mueller’s actions. He hasn’t said everything he knows. Nor has he even finished investigating. It’s way too early to say Trump is innocent.
The only way to change the make up of Congress is for people in republican territory to change their minds about their reps. The only way they will be convinced to change their minds is if they stop watching Fox Entertainment. fat chance of that... (never mind the fact that a Florida Fox affiliate was given the right to lie on the air by the Supreme Court in 2003)
There are more investigations going on. And more indictments to come. Prosecutors climb the ladder slowly. When they actually reach the Trump family (and they will), the fewmets will hit the windmill! There will be nothing Trump will not do then.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 12:49:58 PM
There are more investigations going on. And more indictments to come. Prosecutors climb the ladder slowly. When they actually reach the Trump family (and they will), the fewmets will hit the windmill! There will be nothing Trump will not do then.
I await the jailing of the Kennedy family, the Bush family, the Clinton family and the Obama family.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 02:12:42 PM
I await the jailing of the Kennedy family, the Bush family, the Clinton family and the Obama family.
You have something against Reagan and Carter (no one could hate Ford)?
Down with political dynasties! Bring back monarchy.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 02:16:10 PM
You have something against Reagan and Carter (no one could hate Ford)?
Down with political dynasties! Bring back monarchy.
Now that ... was funny ;-)
Reagan's son was a prima ballerina. No threat there. And Billy Carter is unavailable for comment, thank G-d.
Quote from: fencerider on November 11, 2017, 12:39:41 PM
The point being that Manafort is not the completion of Mueller’s actions. He hasn’t said everything he knows. Nor has he even finished investigating. It’s way too early to say Trump is innocent.
Well, that is some peoples hope, that the investigation will reveal collusion. I don't think it will based only on what Mueller has presented so far. Absolutely nothing related to his mandate.
And your last sentence in this is what is truly alarming. We are ALL supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Quote from: fencerider on November 11, 2017, 12:39:41 PM
The only way to change the make up of Congress is for people in republican territory to change their minds about their reps. The only way they will be convinced to change their minds is if they stop watching Fox Entertainment. fat chance of that... (never mind the fact that a Florida Fox affiliate was given the right to lie on the air by the Supreme Court in 2003)
People that use Fox as the primary source do so because they are already in that mindset. Fox doesnt convert viewers, viewers look for that which re-enforces what they all ready think. In general, none of us watches that which does not support what we already think/enjoy. So to blame fox is a distortion of the reality; there is enough of an existing audience to make fox profitable.
Worse yet, cops and prosecutors can lie to targets of an investigation with impunity, yet Mueller has charged people with lying to investigators. There is a nexflix doc series called something like 'Confessions' about how innocent people sometimes confess to crimes they did not commit due to pressure and psychology. There are many people who plea down to lesser charges just to get the process over with, mostly due to the cost of legal defense, which would include the cost to your employment.
I am going to guess here that if you swapped out the name Trump and put Obama in its place, you would not feel so good about Muellers investigation.
Any politician is guilty, the only question is guilty about what?
Haha ... guilty until proven innocent? How naive. Then it suites the authorities, they claim that, when it doesn't suit them, they claim the opposite, and give casuistry as to the apparent inconsistency.
Of course the authorities can lie. It is right there in Plato's Republic. In fact, all things that are illicit to the public, is licit to the State. The art of civilization is confining the lying, fraud, theft, assault and murder ... to official actions by the State. That is what suppression of crime is all about. But who will enforce the law on the Law? Nobody has ever found a solution for the conundrum.
you mean lie like Plato’s real name is Aristocles?
unfortunately you are right Baruch. There are very few laws passed that apply to Congress, wonder why....
Maybe the solution is for Congress to write the laws for the people and the people write the laws for Congress.
well Chili a few people around Trump already got in trouble. It maybe that it wasnt Trump that was contacting Russia about the election. But part of Mueller’s investigation would have to include looking at Trump’s finances to verify that he didn’t receive any benefits from the Russians during the election. It is a known fact that Russians laundered money through New York real estate. The lawyers working for Mueller (top 16 financial lawyers in the U.S.) suggests they are looking to see if Trump was involved. In other words he may go down for something accidentally discovered by Mueller. Its looking like Trump did launder money and he did it good enough that he would have got away with it if he wasn’t dumb enough to run for president.
hmmm
Mr Obama red line in the sand. A really stupid thing to say. Considering that no military action can be made without approval by Congress. He should have got military action approved by Congress before saying that.
We made some kind of agreement with Egypt for jet fighters. Then the government of Egypt was overthrown. Even though the government we made the agreement with no longer existed Obama still gave the jets to Egypt. That was a dumbunny move.
Obama was fighting for TPP. Even though the base of the Democratic party was strongly opposed to the TPP he kept trying to convince everyone it is a good idea.
The Korean trade agreement will cost some people their jobs and has already added billions to the trade deficit
Feel free to add to the list
Quote from: fencerider on November 13, 2017, 02:05:49 AM
you mean lie like Plato’s real name is Aristocles?
unfortunately you are right Baruch. There are very few laws passed that apply to Congress, wonder why....
Maybe the solution is for Congress to write the laws for the people and the people write the laws for Congress.
well Chili a few people around Trump already got in trouble. It maybe that it wasnt Trump that was contacting Russia about the election. But part of Mueller’s investigation would have to include looking at Trump’s finances to verify that he didn’t receive any benefits from the Russians during the election. It is a known fact that Russians laundered money through New York real estate. The lawyers working for Mueller (top 16 financial lawyers in the U.S.) suggests they are looking to see if Trump was involved. In other words he may go down for something accidentally discovered by Mueller. Its looking like Trump did launder money and he did it good enough that he would have got away with it if he wasn’t dumb enough to run for president.
Platon was a nick name meaning "broad shouldered". Aristocles as a writer's name was bad press in democratic Athens. It means "the best glory" but alliterates with aristocrat. Which is what he was, a rich punk who didn't have to work for a living, but be a policy wonk.
Laundering money is routine for the upper class. How much money does Apple park outside the US to avoid taxes? Laws are for you or me, not them.
Quote from: fencerider on November 13, 2017, 02:24:40 AM
hmmm
Mr Obama red line in the sand. A really stupid thing to say. Considering that no military action can be made without approval by Congress. He should have got military action approved by Congress before saying that.
We made some kind of agreement with Egypt for jet fighters. Then the government of Egypt was overthrown. Even though the government we made the agreement with no longer existed Obama still gave the jets to Egypt. That was a dumbunny move.
Obama was fighting for TPP. Even though the base of the Democratic party was strongly opposed to the TPP he kept trying to convince everyone it is a good idea.
The Korean trade agreement will cost some people their jobs and has already added billions to the trade deficit
Feel free to add to the list
Trump now admits he only does what his banker-owners and military junta in civies tell him to do or say. The US has been at war continuously since 1941. Thanks Empire of Japan .. for that and anime! The US doesn't belong to the People, never did. And yes, starting an almost war with Russia in Ukraine and in Syria, and messing up of Libya and Egypt (Color revolutions courtesy of Soros) ... was such good foreign policy. But then Obama reads stuff he is told to read, better than Trump.
Peace between major wars is often enforced by the best-placed nation in the previous wars. In the case of post WWII, it has been a Pax US. It won't last forever and it is probably fading now.
I wouldn't count out the US just yet. There have been rumors of its decline before. Japan was sure to overtake it, then Germany, then Brazil. It may be that China will, but they are stretched a bit thin internally and may fade.
It is worth remembering that the US has technology, democracy, innovation, population, and geography on it its side still.
And that Trump is a temporary abberration... Or at least we should ALL hope.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 15, 2017, 04:46:22 AM
Peace between major wars is often enforced by the best-placed nation in the previous wars. In the case of post WWII, it has been a Pax US. It won't last forever and it is probably fading now.
I wouldn't count out the US just yet. There have been rumors of its decline before. Japan was sure to overtake it, then Germany, then Brazil. It may be that China will, but they are stretched a bit thin internally and may fade.
It is worth remembering that the US has technology, democracy, innovation, population, and geography on it its side still.
And that Trump is a temporary abberration... Or at least we should ALL hope.
Every non-American since 1918 hopes that American hegemony is an aberration. Some people who post aren't Americans.
what kind of war are you refering to Baruch? economic war since 1941? (scary that I have to learn from Baruch the things they didn’t teach in high school) If you mean military then you are off by a few. U.S. military has been in action somewhere in the world every single year since right after the end of the Civl War... ðŸ¤"maybe a connection to American exceptionalism - started around the same time
Quote from: fencerider on November 16, 2017, 01:55:20 AM
what kind of war are you refering to Baruch? economic war since 1941? (scary that I have to learn from Baruch the things they didn’t teach in high school) If you mean military then you are off by a few. U.S. military has been in action somewhere in the world every single year since right after the end of the Civl War... ðŸ¤"maybe a connection to American exceptionalism - started around the same time
Churchill made sure that the US stopped demobilization in 1946. In economics, in spies, in special forces ... we are at war all the time (Pearl Harbor psychosis). Occasionally it gets worse. This is also because war (profiteering) is the only thing that keeps the economy of the US going; WW II, Korea, Vietnam ... were all driven by economics. Korean war mostly benefited (particularly Toyota) Japan, a US ally. The end of the Vietnam war was a threat to American economy ... hence the need for the war on terror and other adjectives. But there wasn't a lot of money in it before the Federal Reserve (1913). Prior to 1941, the American public didn't support perpetual paranoia/war. Of course the US, by nature, was predatory before WW II ... from the first colony. The American Revolution came about because too much of the profits of the drug trade, slave trade and conquest, were going to London.
Quote from: Baruch on November 12, 2017, 12:36:18 PM
Any politician is guilty, the only question is guilty about what?
Haha ... guilty until proven innocent? How naive.
It's a clever way of putting it underscoring that you will not be sent to prison unless the court says you are guilty. However, in my mind you are guilty upon committing a crime. Proving you actually committed a crime is a bit harder of course, but if this is not accomplished, it doesn't mean you are innocent. I'm not saying I think Trump is guilty or innocent of anything. I just don't know, but he is either guilty or innocent, no matter what judgment, accurate or not, is rendered by the courts.
Anyone defending a person who has committed a crime will point to a not guilty verdict implying that his client is as white as snow and innocent of all wrong doing. That's what we have been taught about American jurisprudence. I hate to sound like a pedant, but in defense of my opinion, I would point out that much about American jurisprudence is little more than bullshit.
Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 08:22:05 PM
I didn't take it personally. Fortunately there are quite a few facts about this case ... and perhaps more indictments. I will cry a very small tear for any Republican or Democrat who goes to jail, even at a spa, for even one day ... sob!
Why does that remind me of Bill the Butcher crying over a poor dead rabbit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrkw1UgX3q0
Quote from: Baruch on November 01, 2017, 10:21:12 PM
I see indictments of two men, not Trump. Trump may be indicted, but not yet. As an insider of the Mueller investigation, please tell us more inside truth ;-)
It's all pink on the inside...
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/02/3a/24/023a24cfe1d06a53f25716c898084046.jpg)
Quote from: SGOS on November 02, 2017, 08:47:19 AM
Who cares if Trump enlisted the Russians to help him win the election? It's a free country.
We sure don't want Muslims running the place, but the Russians are actually helping, and even if they intend to be destructive, the overall result is positive. So I say let them interfere all they want. They gave us a president who actually cares for once, a man who knows how to get things done, a man of deep reflection and keen insight with a brilliant mind who wants to keep us safe from the Mexicans. I simply don't understand all this fuss.
Fuss!? What fuss?
(http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0910/whats-all-the-fuss-about-first-marge-simpson-then-jessica-ra-demotivational-poster-1255363000.jpg)
Quote from: fencerider on November 03, 2017, 01:05:49 AM
I think Duck Dynasty called them squirrel brains
I just call 'em...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Squidbillies_title_card.png)
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 16, 2017, 02:06:07 PM
It's all pink on the inside...
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/02/3a/24/023a24cfe1d06a53f25716c898084046.jpg)
Sorry, I like my steak well done. And where did you get that picture of me? ;-))
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 16, 2017, 02:15:08 PM
I just call 'em...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Squidbillies_title_card.png)
That there is pre-jew-dice ... maybe you need to spend a little more time in the outhouse, getting the Devil out of you?
I am much more like Squidward anyway.
Squidward isn't much fun to be around, though, is he?
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-03/3/15/enhanced/webdr07/anigif_enhanced-25359-1425414197-26.gif?downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 16, 2017, 07:10:07 PM
Squidward isn't much fun to be around, though, is he?
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-03/3/15/enhanced/webdr07/anigif_enhanced-25359-1425414197-26.gif?downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
It that you, Sponge-off-the-rich Commie-pants? "insert Pee-wee Herman laugh track here"
Quote from: fencerider on November 16, 2017, 01:55:20 AM
what kind of war are you refering to Baruch? economic war since 1941? (scary that I have to learn from Baruch the things they didn’t teach in high school) If you mean military then you are off by a few. U.S. military has been in action somewhere in the world every single year since right after the end of the Civl War... ðŸ¤"maybe a connection to American exceptionalism - started around the same time
Dare I suggest that "Pax Americana" requires military action?
Quote from: Cavebear on November 18, 2017, 04:00:14 AM
Dare I suggest that "Pax Americana" requires military action?
Who suggested "Pax Americana" as a policy? Winston Churchill (provided we had a special relationship with Britain, with their hand up our behinds).
But are you suggesting that the Anglo-American Empire is the Roman Empire? If so, we who are about to be nuked, salute you. Yes, all war, all the time ... you make a desert and call it peace (some enemy of Rome said that).
Sorry about last night. Had to take care of two sick cats and clean up while posting. And you forgot the (sarc) on some of your posts. This seems as fine a string as possible to ask again (rhetorical) .. are you a warmonger? I don't think you are. But there is your post just above.
Manafort's Russian ties are far more extensive than previously known (http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-manafort-flight-records-russia-ties-mueller-2017-11)
QuotePresident Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, traveled to Moscow at least 18 times between 2004-2011, while he served as a top adviser to ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and the pro-Russia Party of Regions.
QuoteManafort visited Ukraine at least 138 times between 2004-2015, according to McClatchy. He traveled to Moscow the most between 2005-2006, but took additional trips there through 2011.
QuoteCiting financial documents filed in Cyprus, The New York Times reported in July that Manafort was in debt to pro-Russian interests by as much as $17 million by the time he joined Trump's campaign team in March 2016.
Manafort also has significant business ties to the Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, who signed a $10 million annual contract with Manafort in 2006 for a lobbying project in the US that Manafort said would "greatly benefit the Putin Government," The Associated Press reported in March.
Quote from: Baruch on November 18, 2017, 09:47:30 AM
Who suggested "Pax Americana" as a policy? Winston Churchill (provided we had a special relationship with Britain, with their hand up our behinds).
But are you suggesting that the Anglo-American Empire is the Roman Empire? If so, we who are about to be nuked, salute you. Yes, all war, all the time ... you make a desert and call it peace (some enemy of Rome said that).
Sorry about last night. Had to take care of two sick cats and clean up while posting. And you forgot the (sarc) on some of your posts. This seems as fine a string as possible to ask again (rhetorical) .. are you a warmonger? I don't think you are. But there is your post just above.
My sympathies to you about the cats. One of mine has just recently become fond of peeing just over the edge of the litter boxes. And another can't keep down more than a spoonful of pate canned food first meal of the morning.
"Pax Americana" was a natural result of the destruction in Europe during WWII. It was just that the US wasn't as damaged. I do not suggest any superiority of the US in that consequence.
I am not a war-monger. I think that the world is better off when diplomacy is the in the forefront. I think that we should never have invaded Afghanistan after 9-11 preferring that Interpol take the lead.
I see a world where Gore should have been President in 200 and 2004, Obama 2008 and 2012, and Clinton 2016 and 2020. Tell me the world would be worse off with them than it is now...
Quote from: Cavebear on November 26, 2017, 01:45:06 AM
My sympathies to you about the cats. One of mine has just recently become fond of peeing just over the edge of the litter boxes. And another can't keep down more than a spoonful of pate canned food first meal of the morning.
"Pax Americana" was a natural result of the destruction in Europe during WWII. It was just that the US wasn't as damaged. I do not suggest any superiority of the US in that consequence.
I am not a war-monger. I think that the world is better off when diplomacy is the in the forefront. I think that we should never have invaded Afghanistan after 9-11 preferring that Interpol take the lead.
I see a world where Gore should have been President in 200 and 2004, Obama 2008 and 2012, and Clinton 2016 and 2020. Tell me the world would be worse off with them than it is now...
Agreed. A lot of shit went down 2000-2003. Clinton-Bush shit. But probably just incompetence, not malice - says Napoleon.
And no, it really never was Pax Americana ... just Pax Brittanica with an American accent ;-)