|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2018 16:21:28 GMT -6
LOL, this isn't about convictions right now, just leverage and pressure. It used to be. After 18 some odd months, anyone associated with the investigation know that barring new info, this has gone no where and its going no where. I wonder if they will push for an investigation into how all this shit started. I want then to but at the same time I am exhausted by it all. Just fucking govern already. Burr said similar,(& he is no supporter of Trump), when he mentioned how the Senate investigation was at 19 months & he still had not seen any factual evidence of collusion &/or collaboration between Trump & Russia. Then both he & Lankford both mentioned how the eventual final report could upset their Democrat colleagues. Which shows anyone that basically the side that lost will keep this going until they get the truth that they desire.
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 21, 2018 16:23:35 GMT -6
Upset with the state of current events today are we? That's right, attack the messenger, not the message.
Remember, you're the one that started this with calling me a "drama queen". What happened to those words of wisdom you offered me a couple days ago about "self awareness' and "reflection"?
But it's okay. I can handle the attacks. I get you're just bothered with today's news.
No need for anyone to be upset as what happened today on both fronts was long known. Manafort being guilty on work not related to Trump,(but Work over a decade ago), was know.ln. As a slam dunk case. Only red flag on that one is him being found guilty on less than half the charges,(8 of 18). As for Cohen, he was showing signs on flipping for awhile. Especially this from back in July: amp.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-collusion-michael-cohen-2016-trump-tower-meeting-russian-lawyer-2018-7Translation: Cohen will say, do whatever will benefit him,(cough Gates cough), but he will need hard proof and not speculation to prove his claim,(which his big bombshell is Trump having affairs and paying people to be silent,(like every other celebrity, politician, etc). I’m still waiting on the evidence of collusion &/or collaboration with Russia,(which was the foundation & reason the Special Council was created). Might be waiting awhile on that one. Edit: Let’s also not overlook the fact that as part of the plea deal, Cohen will not help the government. Mueller doesn't care that the Manafort charges are old. He just needs leverage. Now he has a stick and a carrot for Manafort. He'll find out what really went down in the tower meeting with the Russians. And donnie jr has already under oath testified. Connect the dots and let me in on the happy ending.
|
|
|
Post by reddeadredemption on Aug 21, 2018 16:27:40 GMT -6
Mistrial on the 10 counts; verdict coming on the other 8 will be read and guilty on at least one count.
Edit: Guilty on all 8 counts.
Sorry Boots. No mistrial on all counts.
Get ready for the, "he's a nice man...this is a terrible injustice" hogwash. Collusion proven Ah, it wasn't collusion guys - let's go home. Nothing to see here! Oh, Trump directed Cohen? Was it about Russia? No? NBD, just the price of politics, dude. Just has to repay it and all good. Screw that - John Edwards case TF outta here with that crap. Precedent means nothing nowadays. If it looks like a crime and smells like a crime, it's a crime.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 21, 2018 16:37:57 GMT -6
Ah, it wasn't collusion guys - let's go home. Nothing to see here! Oh, Trump directed Cohen? Was it about Russia? No? NBD, just the price of politics, dude. Just has to repay it and all good. Screw that - John Edwards case TF outta here with that crap. Precedent means nothing nowadays. If it looks like a crime and smells like a crime, it's a crime. did you mean to post this in the examples of the Left being unhinged thread?
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 21, 2018 16:48:39 GMT -6
Ah, it wasn't collusion guys - let's go home. Nothing to see here! Oh, Trump directed Cohen? Was it about Russia? No? NBD, just the price of politics, dude. Just has to repay it and all good. Screw that - John Edwards case TF outta here with that crap. Precedent means nothing nowadays. If it looks like a crime and smells like a crime, it's a crime. Manfort cheated on taxes 10 years before he worked for Trump. If you don't like the John Edwards example, how about the 2008 example of the Obama camapign violation for $2,000,000. Paid a fine of $375,000. Cohen admitted to bank and tax fraud and of stealing from Trump. The "hush" money is buying the rights to the story. They woukd have to prove it was paid with campaign money, Trump knew it was being paid with campaign money and the Trunp knew it was illegal. Thats not what happened. Cohen paid it and wrote it off as as a campaign contribution. Thus the charges. They are all crimes. But tou can stomp you feet and pound your fists all you want. Doesn't have shit to do with Trump.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2018 16:52:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2018 16:59:36 GMT -6
No need for anyone to be upset as what happened today on both fronts was long known. Manafort being guilty on work not related to Trump,(but Work over a decade ago), was know.ln. As a slam dunk case. Only red flag on that one is him being found guilty on less than half the charges,(8 of 18). As for Cohen, he was showing signs on flipping for awhile. Especially this from back in July: amp.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-collusion-michael-cohen-2016-trump-tower-meeting-russian-lawyer-2018-7Translation: Cohen will say, do whatever will benefit him,(cough Gates cough), but he will need hard proof and not speculation to prove his claim,(which his big bombshell is Trump having affairs and paying people to be silent,(like every other celebrity, politician, etc). I’m still waiting on the evidence of collusion &/or collaboration with Russia,(which was the foundation & reason the Special Council was created). Might be waiting awhile on that one. Edit: Let’s also not overlook the fact that as part of the plea deal, Cohen will not help the government. Mueller doesn't care that the Manafort charges are old. He just needs leverage. Now he has a stick and a carrot for Manafort. He'll find out what really went down in the tower meeting with the Russians. And donnie jr has already under oath testified. Connect the dots and let me in on the happy ending. Mueller was simply settling the score for Manafort getting away with similar back when Mueller was over the FBI & couldn’t get him. As for leverage, if he had anything of substance to put pressure on Trump, (they wouldn’t have gave him away to the local prosecutor). As for Don Jr. Yes, Don Jr testified in the Senate Investigation,(one of the four investigating Russian collusion & collaboration between Trump, his campaign & Russia). Interesting that in a recent interview Senator Burr,(known to be no Trump supporter), stated how they have investigated the case for 19 months, it’s not over yet, but he has not seen any factual evidence to support the Russian collusion &/or collaboration narrative. Add to it that both he & Lankford mentioned that their Democrat colleagues may not agree with the eventual final report and how it could potentially split the committee. Rather telling comments in that it shows that the Democrats are not really after the truth, but they are after their version of the truth & anything else is unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Aug 21, 2018 17:03:30 GMT -6
Ah, it wasn't collusion guys - let's go home. Nothing to see here! Oh, Trump directed Cohen? Was it about Russia? No? NBD, just the price of politics, dude. Just has to repay it and all good. Screw that - John Edwards case 😮 TF outta here with that crap. Precedent means nothing nowadays. If it looks like a crime and smells like a crime, it's a crime. Manfort cheated on taxes 10 years before he worked for Trump. If you don't like the John Edwards example, how about the 2008 example of the Obama camapign violation for $2,000,000. Paid a fine of $375,000. Cohen admitted to bank and tax fraud and of stealing from Trump. The "hush" money is buying the rights to the story. They woukd have to prove it was paid with campaign money, Trump knew it was being paid with campaign money and the Trunp knew it was illegal. Thats not what happened. Cohen paid it and wrote it off as as a campaign contribution. Thus the charges. They are all crimes. But tou can stomp you feet and pound your fists all you want. Doesn't have shit to do with Trump. I honestly thought a lot more dirt would come out about Trump, being so rich and powerful for so long. Only being able to make a bunch of tertiary charges stick has got to be making the Dems go crazy. The real key is when do they admit Trump did not collude with Russia? You think Trump has won that battle, or is the majority against him there? Will it affect the midterms? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 21, 2018 17:06:33 GMT -6
No need for anyone to be upset as what happened today on both fronts was long known. Manafort being guilty on work not related to Trump,(but Work over a decade ago), was know.ln. As a slam dunk case. Only red flag on that one is him being found guilty on less than half the charges,(8 of 18). As for Cohen, he was showing signs on flipping for awhile. Especially this from back in July: amp.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-collusion-michael-cohen-2016-trump-tower-meeting-russian-lawyer-2018-7Translation: Cohen will say, do whatever will benefit him,(cough Gates cough), but he will need hard proof and not speculation to prove his claim,(which his big bombshell is Trump having affairs and paying people to be silent,(like every other celebrity, politician, etc). I’m still waiting on the evidence of collusion &/or collaboration with Russia,(which was the foundation & reason the Special Council was created). Might be waiting awhile on that one. Edit: Let’s also not overlook the fact that as part of the plea deal, Cohen will not help the government. Mueller doesn't care that the Manafort charges are old. He just needs leverage. Now he has a stick and a carrot for Manafort. He'll find out what really went down in the tower meeting with the Russians. And donnie jr has already under oath testified. Connect the dots and let me in on the happy ending. Yep, Jr. will be getting the screws tightened soon. There was no meeting. There was a meeting. It was about adoptions. It was about Hillary (when pressed by the fake news) but we didn't get the information promised to us so we didn't do anything wrong. Trump didn't write the letter. Trump did write the letter. Good luck to Jr.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2018 17:08:20 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/08/21/imran-awan-no-jail-time-hospital/Former IT aide Imran Awan received no jail time Tuesday after a federal judge said he had “suffered enough.” His lawyer said his “destitute” client was building a charity hospital, but reports show that the land was also used for a real estate development and was allegedly stolen from farmers. Former Democratic chiefs of staff wrote letters of support for Imran, despite IT-violation findings by the House inspector general and Capitol Police. A federal judge declined to give jail time to former Democratic IT aide Imran Awan Tuesday, saying he has “suffered enough” at the hands of politicians “at the highest levels of government.” In addition, the Department of Justice said it did not find any evidence that supported criminal charges. Imran choked back tears, saying, “We want to thank the prosecution, the FBI and the Capitol Police,” while his lawyer submitted a letter referring to President Donald Trump, Sen. Chuck Grassley and other Republications as “deranged,” “pathetic” and “without a shred of decency.” Judge Tanya Chutkin gave Imran three months of supervised release. Imran’s attorney had hoped to avoid the supervision, indicating Imran wanted to go back to Pakistan: “By ending this today, you will allow Hina to build her family wherever she chooses and allow Imran to visit his father’s grave and secure his legacy,” the attorney said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2018 17:10:52 GMT -6
Mueller doesn't care that the Manafort charges are old. He just needs leverage. Now he has a stick and a carrot for Manafort. He'll find out what really went down in the tower meeting with the Russians. And donnie jr has already under oath testified. Connect the dots and let me in on the happy ending. Yep, Jr. will be getting the screws tightened soon. There was no meeting. There was a meeting. It was about adoptions. It was about Hillary (when pressed by the fake news) but we didn't get the information promised to us so we didn't do anything wrong. Trump didn't write the letter. Trump did write the letter. Good luck to Jr. Seeing as how Jr has already testified in one investigation & one of the leaders of said investigation recently said there was no factual evidence of collusion, etc. So, I believe Jr will be fine again.
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 21, 2018 17:15:11 GMT -6
Manfort cheated on taxes 10 years before he worked for Trump. If you don't like the John Edwards example, how about the 2008 example of the Obama camapign violation for $2,000,000. Paid a fine of $375,000. Cohen admitted to bank and tax fraud and of stealing from Trump. The "hush" money is buying the rights to the story. They woukd have to prove it was paid with campaign money, Trump knew it was being paid with campaign money and the Trunp knew it was illegal. Thats not what happened. Cohen paid it and wrote it off as as a campaign contribution. Thus the charges. They are all crimes. But tou can stomp you feet and pound your fists all you want. Doesn't have shit to do with Trump. I honestly thought a lot more dirt would come out about Trump, being so rich and powerful for so long. Only being able to make a bunch of tertiary charges stick has got to be making the Dems go crazy. The real key is when do they admit Trump did not collude with Russia? You think Trump has won that battle, or is the majority against him there? Will it affect the midterms? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk The dirt is coming, Mueller had to get Cohen locked down. They made mention of the ladies, more to follow.
|
|
|
Post by reddeadredemption on Aug 21, 2018 17:19:47 GMT -6
Ah, it wasn't collusion guys - let's go home. Nothing to see here! Oh, Trump directed Cohen? Was it about Russia? No? NBD, just the price of politics, dude. Just has to repay it and all good. Screw that - John Edwards case TF outta here with that crap. Precedent means nothing nowadays. If it looks like a crime and smells like a crime, it's a crime. Manfort cheated on taxes 10 years before he worked for Trump. If you don't like the John Edwards example, how about the 2008 example of the Obama camapign violation for $2,000,000. Paid a fine of $375,000. Cohen admitted to bank and tax fraud and of stealing from Trump. The "hush" money is buying the rights to the story. They woukd have to prove it was paid with campaign money, Trump knew it was being paid with campaign money and the Trunp knew it was illegal. Thats not what happened. Cohen paid it and wrote it off as as a campaign contribution. Thus the charges. They are all crimes. But tou can stomp you feet and pound your fists all you want. Doesn't have shit to do with Trump. Bullshit, Trump directed it. He can claim to be little red riding hood, but the tapes will prove otherwise, as the one released already has.
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 21, 2018 17:26:54 GMT -6
Manfort cheated on taxes 10 years before he worked for Trump. If you don't like the John Edwards example, how about the 2008 example of the Obama camapign violation for $2,000,000. Paid a fine of $375,000. Cohen admitted to bank and tax fraud and of stealing from Trump. The "hush" money is buying the rights to the story. They woukd have to prove it was paid with campaign money, Trump knew it was being paid with campaign money and the Trunp knew it was illegal. Thats not what happened. Cohen paid it and wrote it off as as a campaign contribution. Thus the charges. They are all crimes. But tou can stomp you feet and pound your fists all you want. Doesn't have shit to do with Trump. Bullshit, Trump directed it. He can claim to be little red riding hood, but the tapes will prove otherwise, as the one released already has. Read the law. Doesn't matter if it is on tape or not. They have to prove that trump knew it was illegal.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Aug 21, 2018 17:36:09 GMT -6
Bullshit, Trump directed it. He can claim to be little red riding hood, but the tapes will prove otherwise, as the one released already has. Read the law. Doesn't matter if it is on tape or not. They have to prove that trump knew it was illegal. They don’t care about the law. If the law won’t work, they’ll move the goal posts to hang him over their opinions about his words. It’s Get Trump, and it doesn’t matter the cost...because he’s guilty in their eyes. They’re trying the legal route, but that doesn’t mean it’s their only route. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 21, 2018 18:09:29 GMT -6
Bullshit, Trump directed it. He can claim to be little red riding hood, but the tapes will prove otherwise, as the one released already has. Read the law. Doesn't matter if it is on tape or not. They have to prove that trump knew it was illegal. They have his attorney that was involved in the hush money. How much of a stretch is it that Cohen will testify trump knew?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2018 18:10:32 GMT -6
Interesting. Mark Levin interviewed former Federal Elections Head last night. therightscoop.com/former-fec-chairman-tells-mark-levin-why-stormy-daniels-hush-money-cannot-be-an-in-kind-campaign-contribution/Here’s a snippet quote from Professor Bradley Smith in the interview to wet your whistle: “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.” ...... What he wrote about it back in April: www.wsj.com/articles/stormy-weather-for-campaign-finance-laws-1523398987Shortly before the 2016 election, one of President Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen, arranged a $130,000 payment to the porn star in return for silence about a 2006 affair she claimed to have had with Mr. Trump. (Both the president and Mr. Cohen have denied the affair; Mr. Trump has said he did not know of the payment to Ms. Daniels until this February.) Not satisfied with an old-fashioned sex scandal—perhaps because the president seems impervious to that—some want to turn this into a violation of campaign-finance law. Trevor Potter, a former member of the Federal Election Commission told “60 Minutes” the payment was “a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give.” The FBI raided Mr. Cohen’s office, home and hotel room Monday. They reportedly seized records related to the payment and are investigating possible violations of campaign-finance laws. But let’s remember a basic principle of such laws: Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense. Campaign-finance law aims to prevent corruption. For this reason, the FEC has a longstanding ban on “personal use” of campaign funds. Such use would give campaign contributions a material value beyond helping to elect the candidate—the essence of a bribe. FEC regulations explain that the campaign cannot pay expenses that would exist “irrespective” of the campaign, even if it might help win election. At the same time, obligations that would not exist “but for” the campaign must be paid from campaign funds. If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds. How ironic, given that using campaign funds as hush money was one of the articles of impeachment in the Watergate scandal, which gave rise to modern campaign-finance law.
|
|
|
Post by sooner8th on Aug 21, 2018 18:11:30 GMT -6
Bullshit, Trump directed it. He can claim to be little red riding hood, but the tapes will prove otherwise, as the one released already has. Read the law. Doesn't matter if it is on tape or not. They have to prove that trump knew it was illegal. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA So ignorance of the law is now a defense?
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 21, 2018 18:16:31 GMT -6
Interesting. Mark Levin interviewed former Federal Elections Head last night. therightscoop.com/former-fec-chairman-tells-mark-levin-why-stormy-daniels-hush-money-cannot-be-an-in-kind-campaign-contribution/Here’s a snippet quote from Professor Bradley Smith in the interview to wet your whistle: “When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.” ...... What he wrote about it back in April: www.wsj.com/articles/stormy-weather-for-campaign-finance-laws-1523398987Shortly before the 2016 election, one of President Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen, arranged a $130,000 payment to the porn star in return for silence about a 2006 affair she claimed to have had with Mr. Trump. (Both the president and Mr. Cohen have denied the affair; Mr. Trump has said he did not know of the payment to Ms. Daniels until this February.) Not satisfied with an old-fashioned sex scandal—perhaps because the president seems impervious to that—some want to turn this into a violation of campaign-finance law. Trevor Potter, a former member of the Federal Election Commission told “60 Minutes” the payment was “a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give.” The FBI raided Mr. Cohen’s office, home and hotel room Monday. They reportedly seized records related to the payment and are investigating possible violations of campaign-finance laws. But let’s remember a basic principle of such laws: Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense. Campaign-finance law aims to prevent corruption. For this reason, the FEC has a longstanding ban on “personal use” of campaign funds. Such use would give campaign contributions a material value beyond helping to elect the candidate—the essence of a bribe. FEC regulations explain that the campaign cannot pay expenses that would exist “irrespective” of the campaign, even if it might help win election. At the same time, obligations that would not exist “but for” the campaign must be paid from campaign funds. If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds. How ironic, given that using campaign funds as hush money was one of the articles of impeachment in the Watergate scandal, which gave rise to modern campaign-finance law. www.politico.com/story/2012/06/justice-dept-wont-retry-john-edwards-077398
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 21, 2018 18:18:24 GMT -6
Read the law. Doesn't matter if it is on tape or not. They have to prove that trump knew it was illegal. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA So ignorance of the law is now a defense? Oh, you want to discuss the law again, do you. So tell us, to be held criminally liable for violation of the in kind campaign finance statute (i'll let you look it up) what elements have to be proven?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2018 18:48:34 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/08/21/no-cohen-cooperation-lying/Former federal prosecutor John Lauro gave some insight into the Michael Cohen case on Tuesday, explaining to CNN’s Brooke Baldwin the implications of the fact that there is no cooperation agreement in place. Lauro said that he was surprised there was no cooperation agreement in place because it removed some of the leverage Mueller would have to use Cohen as a source of information. He explained, “I try cases in this courtroom. It’s shocking to me that there’s not a cooperation agreement in place because, for Mueller, Cohen is the gold standard. He wanted Cohen’s cooperation and the fact that there’s not a cooperation agreement apparently as part of this plea deal is very surprising.” But then Lauro delved into the possible reasons that there might not be a cooperation agreement, and things began to take shape. “It can only mean one of two things,” he said. “Either he didn’t have something to give the prosecutor, or they weren’t convinced that he was completely honest with them.” The bottom line, according to Lauro: “It’s unusual not to have a cooperation agreement.”
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 21, 2018 19:04:17 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/08/21/no-cohen-cooperation-lying/Former federal prosecutor John Lauro gave some insight into the Michael Cohen case on Tuesday, explaining to CNN’s Brooke Baldwin the implications of the fact that there is no cooperation agreement in place. Lauro said that he was surprised there was no cooperation agreement in place because it removed some of the leverage Mueller would have to use Cohen as a source of information. He explained, “I try cases in this courtroom. It’s shocking to me that there’s not a cooperation agreement in place because, for Mueller, Cohen is the gold standard. He wanted Cohen’s cooperation and the fact that there’s not a cooperation agreement apparently as part of this plea deal is very surprising.” But then Lauro delved into the possible reasons that there might not be a cooperation agreement, and things began to take shape. “It can only mean one of two things,” he said. “Either he didn’t have something to give the prosecutor, or they weren’t convinced that he was completely honest with them.” The bottom line, according to Lauro: “It’s unusual not to have a cooperation agreement.” No agreement in place because no cooperation to agree on. Because Mueller isn't pursuing it because they transferred it to SDNY.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Aug 21, 2018 19:08:08 GMT -6
Read the law. Doesn't matter if it is on tape or not. They have to prove that trump knew it was illegal. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA So ignorance of the law is now a defense? Is it that you don’t know the law, or that you just choose to disregard and (ignorantly?) misrepresent it? More importantly, where do you stand on levying charges and conducting investigations to find a crime? Obviously, it’s ludicrous, but it always seems okay if the ends justify the means, right? I get it that those guilty should be held responsible, but what about the rules and ethics of law, which protect us all? Seems pretty egregious to disregard it when it’s someone else, just because we are sure they did something. In fact, the folks who refused to stand up against actual fascists felt they were supporting the right thing, if only in a round about way. Allowing groupthink to subvert the rule of law is so shortsighted and dangerous that I wonder why folks refuse to see it?? Bias is an extremely dangerous thing... You know how they say the hardest part of free speech is defending it when they are saying things you don’t agree with?? Well, this is that, and you’re taking the easy position. Don’t help the left destroy the rule of law in this country just because it fits your current agenda. That’s way too short sighted to get you anywhere, in the long run. Think about that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 21, 2018 19:20:14 GMT -6
No need for anyone to be upset as what happened today on both fronts was long known. Manafort being guilty on work not related to Trump,(but Work over a decade ago), was know.ln. As a slam dunk case. Only red flag on that one is him being found guilty on less than half the charges,(8 of 18). As for Cohen, he was showing signs on flipping for awhile. Especially this from back in July: amp.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-collusion-michael-cohen-2016-trump-tower-meeting-russian-lawyer-2018-7Translation: Cohen will say, do whatever will benefit him,(cough Gates cough), but he will need hard proof and not speculation to prove his claim,(which his big bombshell is Trump having affairs and paying people to be silent,(like every other celebrity, politician, etc). I’m still waiting on the evidence of collusion &/or collaboration with Russia,(which was the foundation & reason the Special Council was created). Might be waiting awhile on that one. Edit: Let’s also not overlook the fact that as part of the plea deal, Cohen will not help the government. Mueller doesn't care that the Manafort charges are old. He just needs leverage. Now he has a stick and a carrot for Manafort. He'll find out what really went down in the tower meeting with the Russians. And donnie jr has already under oath testified. Connect the dots and let me in on the happy ending. How does he get that info after a conviction? I thought that stuff would happen prior to trial? There are no more threats Meuller can make against Manafort, are there?
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Aug 21, 2018 19:25:31 GMT -6
🇺🇸Michael Flynn Jr🇺🇸 Michael Flynn Jr @mflynnjr · 1h Liberals are going to hate when they wake up next week and realize @realdonaldtrump is still @potus
Enjoy your 48 hours of insanity.... 124 541 1.7K
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Aug 21, 2018 19:27:55 GMT -6
Mueller doesn't care that the Manafort charges are old. He just needs leverage. Now he has a stick and a carrot for Manafort. He'll find out what really went down in the tower meeting with the Russians. And donnie jr has already under oath testified. Connect the dots and let me in on the happy ending. How does he get that info after a conviction? I thought that stuff would happen prior to trial? There are no more threats Meuller can make against Manafort, are there? He’s convinced Trump is guilty. All roads lead to guilt, so don’t muddy it up with reality. Or due process. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 21, 2018 19:59:00 GMT -6
Mueller doesn't care that the Manafort charges are old. He just needs leverage. Now he has a stick and a carrot for Manafort. He'll find out what really went down in the tower meeting with the Russians. And donnie jr has already under oath testified. Connect the dots and let me in on the happy ending. How does he get that info after a conviction? I thought that stuff would happen prior to trial? There are no more threats Meuller can make against Manafort, are there? Well if he starts cooperating the punishment could vary depending on how helpful he wishes to he. Or he could hold off on a pardon if he wants to roll the dice.
|
|
|
Post by 1tc on Aug 21, 2018 20:02:55 GMT -6
How does he get that info after a conviction? I thought that stuff would happen prior to trial? There are no more threats Meuller can make against Manafort, are there? Well if he starts cooperating the punishment could vary depending on how helpful he wishes to he. Or he could hold off on a pardon if he wants to roll the dice. Are you sure that’s how it works? I’m asking because I thought it’s in the hands of the Judge and Federal sentencing guidelines now.
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 21, 2018 20:04:00 GMT -6
Mueller doesn't care that the Manafort charges are old. He just needs leverage. Now he has a stick and a carrot for Manafort. He'll find out what really went down in the tower meeting with the Russians. And donnie jr has already under oath testified. Connect the dots and let me in on the happy ending. How does he get that info after a conviction? I thought that stuff would happen prior to trial? There are no more threats Meuller can make against Manafort, are there? Rule 35 of the FRCP allow for sentence reductions after conviction or plea for significant cooperation
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 21, 2018 20:05:25 GMT -6
How does he get that info after a conviction? I thought that stuff would happen prior to trial? There are no more threats Meuller can make against Manafort, are there? He’s convinced Trump is guilty. All roads lead to guilt, so don’t muddy it up with reality. Or due process. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk LOL, Trump is about 70. Hes been a lying, crooked, sack of shit his whole life. You think he just up and turns into a boy scout overnight? The job of president comes with a lot of perks but the microscope/fishbowl isnt one of them.
|
|