Indictments in Mueller Probe of Trump-Russia Collusion

[Shiranu]

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.

[trdsf]

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.

[Cavebear]

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."

[Baruch]

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?

[Baruch]

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?

[Cavebear]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[SGOS]

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.

[chill98]

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.

...The section cited by Mueller requires the FARA violation to be “knowing and willful.”

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-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.

[Baruch]

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.

[Baruch]

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!".

[fencerider]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[chill98]

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:

Former 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/

[Mike Cl]

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.