It's a freaking Witch Hunt.......
Mueller team lectured by judge in Manafort case
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors were lectured by a federal judge on Wednesday for the language they’ve used in the courtroom and more, as the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort entered its second day.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/...-case.html
They got a full metric [BLEEP] load of nuthin.
Just so I am clear, the first trial of the Mueller special council nearly 18 months into the investigation has absolutely ZERO to do with Russian collusion?
(08-01-2018, 05:13 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Just so I am clear, the first trial of the Mueller special council nearly 18 months into the investigation has absolutely ZERO to do with Russian collusion?
Crystal.
(08-01-2018, 05:13 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Just so I am clear, the first trial of the Mueller special council nearly 18 months into the investigation has absolutely ZERO to do with Russian collusion?
Bullet point (ii) of Rosenstein's initial authorization is that the Special Counsel may investigate "any matter arising directly or indirectly from the investigation" of allegations that people in the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
They investigated people in the Trump campaign.
They found that Manafort was an unregistered agent for the Ukrainian government. They are now prosecuting that.
Then there is bullet point (iii) which refers to this part of the Code of Federal Regulations:
"The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted. "
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Because the Special Counsel is specifically directed to take over the investigation that James Comey had already been conducting, any effort to thwart or confuse Comey before he was fired and Mueller was appointed is part of what Mueller's team is tasked with investigating.
...and still no so-called "collusion."
As even Strozk admitted, there is no "there" there.
Let that sink in.
This same case, the very same case, was examined earlier and no charges were determined to be necessary at the time.
We must ask ourselves objectively... what has changed in the facts between then and now?
Nothing.
Why wasn't Trump notified about the previous investigation that led to no charges?
That also deserves an objective answer. As does the question of why charges were brought only now, since the facts in the case have not changed.
The President is right here. Objectively speaking.
(08-02-2018, 10:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2018, 05:13 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Just so I am clear, the first trial of the Mueller special council nearly 18 months into the investigation has absolutely ZERO to do with Russian collusion?
Bullet point (ii) of Rosenstein's initial authorization is that the Special Counsel may investigate "any matter arising directly or indirectly from the investigation" of allegations that people in the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
They investigated people in the Trump campaign.
They found that Mueller was an unregistered agent for the Ukrainian government. They are now prosecuting that.
Then there is bullet point (iii) which refers to this part of the Code of Federal Regulations:
"The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted. "
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Because the Special Counsel is specifically directed to take over the investigation that James Comey had already been conducting, any effort to thwart or confuse Comey before he was fired and Mueller was appointed is part of what Mueller's team is tasked with investigating.
Aha! Mueller is a Ukrainian double agent! I KNEW IT!!!!
(08-02-2018, 11:38 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2018, 10:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Bullet point (ii) of Rosenstein's initial authorization is that the Special Counsel may investigate "any matter arising directly or indirectly from the investigation" of allegations that people in the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
They investigated people in the Trump campaign.
They found that Mueller was an unregistered agent for the Ukrainian government. They are now prosecuting that.
Then there is bullet point (iii) which refers to this part of the Code of Federal Regulations:
"The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted. "
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Because the Special Counsel is specifically directed to take over the investigation that James Comey had already been conducting, any effort to thwart or confuse Comey before he was fired and Mueller was appointed is part of what Mueller's team is tasked with investigating.
Aha! Mueller is a Ukrainian double agent! I KNEW IT!!!!
Oops. Good catch. Fixed now.
(08-02-2018, 11:28 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]...and still no so-called "collusion."
As even Strozk admitted, there is no "there" there.
Let that sink in.
This same case, the very same case, was examined earlier and no charges were determined to be necessary at the time.
We must ask ourselves objectively... what has changed in the facts between then and now?
Nothing.
Why wasn't Trump notified about the previous investigation that led to no charges?
That also deserves an objective answer. As does the question of why charges were brought only now, since the facts in the case have not changed.
The President is right here. Objectively speaking.
Collusion with Russia is bullet point (i).
Obstruction of Justice is bullet point (iii).
Either would fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors" if proven.
The Obstruction of Justice implies a fear of being prosecuted, however, the fear could arise from any illegal act that a person committed, not necessarily collusion with Russia. For instance, if Mueller is investigating person C for colluding, and person C gets nervous and starts giving false statements or destroying evidence, those are crimes regardless of if person C colluded. Person C may be destroying evidence or giving false statements for other reasons. Perhaps he's into illegal gambling or money laundering.
Isn't it ironic how people like to point out their perceived fiscal irresponsibility of a sitting president, yet are perfectly fine with an open-ended investigation with the high probability of failure with the current price tag of 30 million tax payer dollars and growing by the minute?
(08-02-2018, 12:58 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2018, 11:28 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]...and still no so-called "collusion."
As even Strozk admitted, there is no "there" there.
Let that sink in.
This same case, the very same case, was examined earlier and no charges were determined to be necessary at the time.
We must ask ourselves objectively... what has changed in the facts between then and now?
Nothing.
Why wasn't Trump notified about the previous investigation that led to no charges?
That also deserves an objective answer. As does the question of why charges were brought only now, since the facts in the case have not changed.
The President is right here. Objectively speaking.
Collusion with Russia is bullet point (i).
Obstruction of Justice is bullet point (iii).
Either would fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors" if proven.
The Obstruction of Justice implies a fear of being prosecuted, however, the fear could arise from any illegal act that a person committed, not necessarily collusion with Russia. For instance, if Mueller is investigating person C for colluding, and person C gets nervous and starts giving false statements or destroying evidence, those are crimes regardless of if person C colluded. Person C may be destroying evidence or giving false statements for other reasons. Perhaps he's into illegal gambling or money laundering.
If this is parody, bravo.
If you truly believe this nonsense, then you truly are the dimmest bulb in the string.
(08-02-2018, 01:38 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it ironic how people like to point out their perceived fiscal irresponsibility of a sitting president, yet are perfectly fine with an open-ended investigation with the high probability of failure with the current price tag of 30 million tax payer dollars and growing by the minute?
$30 million is probably not even enough to fix the Ortega River Bridge.
To bring it up in a discussion of the Federal Government's balance sheet - that's worse penny wise and pound foolish. That's penny wise and ton foolish!
(08-02-2018, 01:56 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2018, 12:58 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Collusion with Russia is bullet point (i).
Obstruction of Justice is bullet point (iii).
Either would fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors" if proven.
The Obstruction of Justice implies a fear of being prosecuted, however, the fear could arise from any illegal act that a person committed, not necessarily collusion with Russia. For instance, if Mueller is investigating person C for colluding, and person C gets nervous and starts giving false statements or destroying evidence, those are crimes regardless of if person C colluded. Person C may be destroying evidence or giving false statements for other reasons. Perhaps he's into illegal gambling or money laundering.
If this is parody, bravo.
If you truly believe this nonsense, then you truly are the dimmest bulb in the string.
One finger pointing at me, three pointing back at you. Read up on what "obstruction of justice" really is. It's more subjective than other crimes, but it is very much a real crime that has put real people into real prison. Please don't take my word for it. Read anything written before 2016 on the topic and you'll see.
Lol, you're really making and absolute fool of yourself here.
This case has zero to do with Trump.
(08-02-2018, 02:12 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, you're really making and absolute fool of yourself here.
This case has zero to do with Trump.
I never claimed it did have anything to do with Trump. I'm only saying that it could, and it could yet reveal impeachable offenses.
You keep on missing my meaning.
Here, I'm just skeptical.
Just because I'm questioning your point, does not mean I'm advocating the diametric opposite point.
You seem to assume that everyone is as sure of their own right-ness as you are.
I'm hoping to show you that you have reasons to doubt your own hunches and suspicions.
On the contrary, you just wasted a post trying to reframe what I've posted. But feel free to carry on. You seem to think "final post" gives you some sort of advantage even if the substance is empty.
(08-01-2018, 04:42 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]They got a full metric [BLEEP] load of nuthin.
Do you think Manafort is innocent?
(08-02-2018, 07:17 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2018, 04:42 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]They got a full metric [BLEEP] load of nuthin.
Do you think Manafort is innocent?
You worried about Mullers group of angry democrats screwing up the trial? Looks like they have a real judge who isn't going to take their crap.
Democrats screw up everything they touch, so this this should be no different.
(08-02-2018, 07:42 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2018, 07:17 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think Manafort is innocent?
You worried about Mullers group of angry democrats screwing up the trial? Looks like they have a real judge who isn't going to take their crap.
Democrats screw up everything they touch, so this this should be no different.
You didn't answer a question not asked of you. This message board stuff isn't that hard.
"group of angry democrats"? Polly want a cracker?
(08-02-2018, 08:27 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2018, 07:42 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]You worried about Mullers group of angry democrats screwing up the trial? Looks like they have a real judge who isn't going to take their crap.
Democrats screw up everything they touch, so this this should be no different.
You didn't answer a question not asked of you. This message board stuff isn't that hard.
"group of angry democrats"? Polly want a cracker?
Keep focusing on that 15k ostrich coat. I'll answer your unasked question. Being rich is not a crime. Good luck in your continued witch hunt.
![[Image: CwIPaTgVUAA5Vlh.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwIPaTgVUAA5Vlh.jpg)