(08-10-2018, 07:55 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-10-2018, 06:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]1) Mueller used to be a member of one of Trump's golf clubs almost a decade ago. Im not aware of any other "conflict of interest" Mueller might have. Are there any others? Because that strikes me as minor.
2) Sessions actually did consulting work, reporting to Manafort, in 2016. Much stronger conflict.
One could consider Trump giving Mueller the boot from being the FBI director candidate then him being appointed to head the special council a few days later a conflict.
Agreed.
In the same way Sessions agreed to recuse himself because he got the job, Mueller should've recused himself because he didn't get the job.
(08-10-2018, 01:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ][
(08-10-2018, 10:31 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]As I said, he's innocent of what Mueller was assigned to investigate. I don't particularly care for any special counsels that are given free range to prosecute activities unrelated to their mandate. Starr was investigating abuse of power, something that included Clinton's proclivities to abuse his female subordinates, so I think that was within scope.
What part of "any matter that may arise directly from that investigation" do you not understand?
They sniffed around Manafort to find if he was in with Russians. Evidence was lacking for that. But very quickly they found out he was a tax cheat, among other things.
I'm sure the legal basis for investigating it is solid, but he shouldn't even be interested in matters unrelated to collusion with Russian officials. Issues that happened years ago. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that they wanted to flip Manafort into squealing or providing testimony against Trump.
(08-10-2018, 06:54 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (08-10-2018, 07:55 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]One could consider Trump giving Mueller the boot from being the FBI director candidate then him being appointed to head the special council a few days later a conflict.
Agreed.
In the same way Sessions agreed to recuse himself because he got the job, Mueller should've recused himself because he didn't get the job.
(08-10-2018, 01:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ][
What part of "any matter that may arise directly from that investigation" do you not understand?
They sniffed around Manafort to find if he was in with Russians. Evidence was lacking for that. But very quickly they found out he was a tax cheat, among other things.
I'm sure the legal basis for investigating it is solid, but he shouldn't even be interested in matters unrelated to collusion with Russian officials. Issues that happened years ago. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that they wanted to flip Manafort into squealing or providing testimony against Trump.
Sure, but tax fraud, if discovered, has to be prosecuted.
Yes part of the motive initially was to get Manafort to flip but it's probably too late for that. And it may be that Manafort had no evidence to offer against Trump or anyone else. Once the evidence was collected and presented to him, and he still couldn't or wouldn't give them what they wanted, they had to follow through with the threats to prosecute. Prosecutors can't make empty threats like that.
Manafort isn't being prosecuted for being Trump's associate.
He's being prosecuted for tax fraud.
(08-10-2018, 09:16 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (08-10-2018, 08:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, but tax fraud, if discovered, has to be prosecuted.
Ten year old alleged tax fraud.
Are you OK with that? Do you think there should be no statute of limitations for crime that amounts to keeping your own earnings? Do you think that the Federal government should be prosecuting people for failure to properly file a tax return when a dozen different IRS employees could not agree on exactly what the law is, and doing it ten years later?
This amounts to making anyone subject to extortion by the government if some bureaucrat or high ranking official wants to get a person or force him to do something ... and with no time limit. And that is exactly what has happened in this case.
Are you OK with that?
Sure he is, moderate Republicans can't wait to grovel before the Democrats.
(08-10-2018, 08:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-10-2018, 06:54 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed.
In the same way Sessions agreed to recuse himself because he got the job, Mueller should've recused himself because he didn't get the job.
I'm sure the legal basis for investigating it is solid, but he shouldn't even be interested in matters unrelated to collusion with Russian officials. Issues that happened years ago. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that they wanted to flip Manafort into squealing or providing testimony against Trump.
Sure, but tax fraud, if discovered, has to be prosecuted.
Yes part of the motive initially was to get Manafort to flip but it's probably too late for that. And it may be that Manafort had no evidence to offer against Trump or anyone else. Once the evidence was collected and presented to him, and he still couldn't or wouldn't give them what they wanted, they had to follow through with the threats to prosecute. Prosecutors can't make empty threats like that.
Manafort isn't being prosecuted for being Trump's associate.
He's being prosecuted for tax fraud.
I would agree with you except they've given immunity to more people than they've charged. Including Tony Podesta for what appeared to be the same offense.
(08-11-2018, 05:11 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (08-10-2018, 08:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, but tax fraud, if discovered, has to be prosecuted.
Yes part of the motive initially was to get Manafort to flip but it's probably too late for that. And it may be that Manafort had no evidence to offer against Trump or anyone else. Once the evidence was collected and presented to him, and he still couldn't or wouldn't give them what they wanted, they had to follow through with the threats to prosecute. Prosecutors can't make empty threats like that.
Manafort isn't being prosecuted for being Trump's associate.
He's being prosecuted for tax fraud.
I would agree with you except they've given immunity to more people than they've charged. Including Tony Podesta for what appeared to be the same offense.
Well, some witches are more equal than others.
(08-10-2018, 08:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-10-2018, 06:54 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed.
In the same way Sessions agreed to recuse himself because he got the job, Mueller should've recused himself because he didn't get the job.
I'm sure the legal basis for investigating it is solid, but he shouldn't even be interested in matters unrelated to collusion with Russian officials. Issues that happened years ago. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that they wanted to flip Manafort into squealing or providing testimony against Trump.
Sure, but tax fraud, if discovered, has to be prosecuted.
Yes part of the motive initially was to get Manafort to flip but it's probably too late for that. And it may be that Manafort had no evidence to offer against Trump or anyone else. Once the evidence was collected and presented to him, and he still couldn't or wouldn't give them what they wanted, they had to follow through with the threats to prosecute. Prosecutors can't make empty threats like that.
Manafort isn't being prosecuted for being Trump's associate.
He's being prosecuted for tax fraud.
You are missing the point of the argument that it doesn't take a special council to prosecute tax fraud.
(08-12-2018, 09:14 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-10-2018, 08:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, but tax fraud, if discovered, has to be prosecuted.
Yes part of the motive initially was to get Manafort to flip but it's probably too late for that. And it may be that Manafort had no evidence to offer against Trump or anyone else. Once the evidence was collected and presented to him, and he still couldn't or wouldn't give them what they wanted, they had to follow through with the threats to prosecute. Prosecutors can't make empty threats like that.
Manafort isn't being prosecuted for being Trump's associate.
He's being prosecuted for tax fraud.
You are missing the point of the argument that it doesn't take a special council to prosecute tax fraud.
It's not unusual for investigations to result in ancillary indictments. Face it, Trump surrounded himself with scumbags, including one he put in charge of his presidential campaign. A thorough investigation into Russian activities during the 2016 election turned up criminal activity not related to the original reasons for the investigation. That's not a witch hunt, that's law enforcement.
(08-12-2018, 10:02 AM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2018, 09:14 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]You are missing the point of the argument that it doesn't take a special council to prosecute tax fraud.
It's not unusual for investigations to result in ancillary indictments. Face it, Trump surrounded himself with scumbags, including one he put in charge of his presidential campaign. A thorough investigation into Russian activities during the 2016 election turned up criminal activity not related to the original reasons for the investigation. That's not a witch hunt, that's law enforcement.
This IS a witch hunt, and Judge Ellis sees it for what it is, which is why prosecutors are physically crying and filing complaints. Lurch is pushing 2 years, 30+M of YOUR money, and coming up empty, and on top of that, the private legal team of DJT is making his whole special council look like chumps.
It's almost over RJ. Hang in there.
(08-12-2018, 10:24 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2018, 10:02 AM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]It's not unusual for investigations to result in ancillary indictments. Face it, Trump surrounded himself with scumbags, including one he put in charge of his presidential campaign. A thorough investigation into Russian activities during the 2016 election turned up criminal activity not related to the original reasons for the investigation. That's not a witch hunt, that's law enforcement.
This IS a witch hunt, and Judge Ellis sees it for what it is, which is why prosecutors are physically crying and filing complaints. Lurch is pushing 2 years, 30+M of YOUR money, and coming up empty, and on top of that, the private legal team of DJT is making his whole special council look like chumps.
It's almost over RJ. Hang in there.
"private legal team" = Trump's TV lawyers, who haven't been in a court room in 25 years. I expect Matlock to handle the appeals.
And why is Donald acting as if he's guilty if he's not? He's seems to be getting very nervous, based on his tweets. I just hope he doesn't stroke out.
(08-12-2018, 11:22 AM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2018, 10:24 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]This IS a witch hunt, and Judge Ellis sees it for what it is, which is why prosecutors are physically crying and filing complaints. Lurch is pushing 2 years, 30+M of YOUR money, and coming up empty, and on top of that, the private legal team of DJT is making his whole special council look like chumps.
It's almost over RJ. Hang in there.
"private legal team" = Trump's TV lawyers, who haven't been in a court room in 25 years. I expect Matlock to handle the appeals.
And why is Donald acting as if he's guilty if he's not? He's seems to be getting very nervous, based on his tweets. I just hope he doesn't stroke out.
Jay Sekulow has argued in front of the SCOTUS 12 times in his career. Not a bad resume for a "TV lawyer"
Again, have you ever been right about ANYTHING?
(08-12-2018, 10:24 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2018, 10:02 AM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]It's not unusual for investigations to result in ancillary indictments. Face it, Trump surrounded himself with scumbags, including one he put in charge of his presidential campaign. A thorough investigation into Russian activities during the 2016 election turned up criminal activity not related to the original reasons for the investigation. That's not a witch hunt, that's law enforcement.
This IS a witch hunt, and Judge Ellis sees it for what it is, which is why prosecutors are physically crying and filing complaints. Lurch is pushing 2 years, 30+M of YOUR money, and coming up empty, and on top of that, the private legal team of DJT is making his whole special council look like chumps.
It's almost over RJ. Hang in there.
Judge Ellis has also apologized for some of his actions, he's just running a courtroom. Nothing he's done affects the evidence or testimony presented in the trial. Despite what you may believe, what the Russians did in 2016, and are still doing, required investigation. If it turns out Trump never colluded, or if there was any collusion it was legal and/or done without his knowledge, fine. It has no affect on my life in any way.
(08-10-2018, 06:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-10-2018, 05:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I like when the leadership class this country keeps its money in this country and follows the tax laws in this country.
To each their own.
Riiiight, better to chase decades old tax questions if it means protecting the Democrats from prosecution.
Protecting what Democrats from prosecution? How? For what?
(08-12-2018, 08:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-10-2018, 06:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Riiiight, better to chase decades old tax questions if it means protecting the Democrats from prosecution.
Protecting what Democrats from prosecution? How? For what?
You do try your utmost to join the team.
(08-12-2018, 10:58 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2018, 08:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Protecting what Democrats from prosecution? How? For what?
You do try your utmost to join the team.
I just don't listen to talk radio or Fox News.
If they originate a story that's not lies or propaganda let me know.
I don't deny some Democrats deserve prosecution.
But what does that have to do with Mueller?
(08-13-2018, 07:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2018, 10:58 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You do try your utmost to join the team.
I just don't listen to talk radio or Fox News.
If they originate a story that's not lies or propaganda let me know.
I don't deny some Democrats deserve prosecution.
But what does that have to do with Mueller?
Congratulations, I don't either. What does that have to do with this investigation? It's been 2 years and we have nothing but a decades old tax issue when we've actually been given evidence that Mueller sat on an actual kickback scheme involving the Russian government and Clinton, while he's was heading the FBI no less, which at the least is a disqualifying conflict of interest. But go ahead Mr. Republican, launch your defense, they promise to eat you last.
(08-13-2018, 07:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2018, 10:58 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You do try your utmost to join the team.
I just don't listen to talk radio or Fox News.
If they originate a story that's not lies or propaganda let me know.
I don't deny some Democrats deserve prosecution.
But what does that have to do with Mueller?
Where do you get your news from then? Politico and football message boards?
(08-13-2018, 08:02 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-13-2018, 07:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I just don't listen to talk radio or Fox News.
If they originate a story that's not lies or propaganda let me know.
I don't deny some Democrats deserve prosecution.
But what does that have to do with Mueller?
Where do you get your news from then? Politico and football message boards?
Isn't it interesting that the Fox News bit is always the play? He's working off of false assumptions and tortured language to create his own little imaginary world where he's a Champion of the Right and you clods are ruining everything.
(08-13-2018, 08:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-13-2018, 08:02 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Where do you get your news from then? Politico and football message boards?
Isn't it interesting that the Fox News bit is always the play? He's working off of false assumptions and tortured language to create his own little imaginary world where he's a Champion of the Right and you clods are ruining everything.
It's like their rebuttal to "fake news". The only problem is, Painting with Bob Ross and The Wiggles routinely outperform the networks people like that get their news from. Nobody ever takes the time to ask why that is.
(08-12-2018, 11:43 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2018, 11:22 AM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ]"private legal team" = Trump's TV lawyers, who haven't been in a court room in 25 years. I expect Matlock to handle the appeals.
And why is Donald acting as if he's guilty if he's not? He's seems to be getting very nervous, based on his tweets. I just hope he doesn't stroke out.
Jay Sekulow has argued in front of the SCOTUS 12 times in his career. Not a bad resume for a "TV lawyer"
Again, have you ever been right about ANYTHING?
Sekulow is Trump's lawyer from Fox TV.
Rudy is Trump's lawyer from ??? The Twilight Zone?
Trump's real attorney is Emmet Flood, and he doesn't do TV. Unless Donald has again hired Michael Cohen, because, you know, Donald only hires the best people.
You really need to try and keep up.