|
Post by Boots on Aug 14, 2018 15:16:53 GMT -6
There are people making like this is significant. Its not. Its common. If you dont think the govt made their case, and there is more ofna danger to your client to keep going, dont. True. I was reading up on it last night & posted a Twitter update where they hinted to this possibility. One report called it by a Latin name,(I believe), but unfortunately I can’t recall what it was exactly & how this was a very common practice to ask for a court dismissal after the prosecution presents its case. Unlike some people around here that point out rules or laws the don't exist... Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal (a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Aug 14, 2018 15:39:37 GMT -6
Peter Strzok ✔ @petestrzok Stunned and humbled by the extraordinary outpouring of support already received from thousands of fellow everyday citizens taking time to fight for our country and our shared American ideals. Thank you. 8:14 AM - Aug 14, 2018 42.9K 13.6K people are talking about this ....... Currently, the page is north of $300,000. I can't believe this guy will be accepting money from regular americans. What a joke. But it fits with his smug personality Most of his donors are probably pussy-hat/vagina costume-wearers, green-haired millenial social justice warriors, and coffee shop poetry-reading hipsters. Whether or not these people qualify as "regular Americans" is debatable.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 14, 2018 16:32:56 GMT -6
www.fox5ny.com/news/kristin-davis-talks-about-russia-investigationThe woman known as the “Manhattan Madam” for once running a high-end prostitution ring in New York City says she was bullied by Robert Mueller’s team when she was forced to testify in front of a grand jury in connection with the Russia investigation. Kristin Davis said she was forced to answer leading questions on the character of her longtime friend and colleague Roger Stone. “I left there feeling very sick to my stomach,” Davis said in an interview on Fox 5’s Good Day New York. She also says her subpoena was moved up and she was only given four days notice to get to Washington, D.C. “I basically said ‘I don’t have child care for a 2-year-old’ and they said ‘if you can talk to the media you can figure out how to get your son to D.C.’,” Davis said. She said they provided a plane ticket but the charges ended up on her credit card. She’s not expecting the government to fully reimburse her for the expenses. Stone is a longtime friend and supporter of President Trump and his name has been linked to the investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and the Trump presidential campaign. “I don’t think any collusion happened,” Davis said.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 14, 2018 17:36:27 GMT -6
www.fox5ny.com/news/kristin-davis-talks-about-russia-investigationThe woman known as the “Manhattan Madam” for once running a high-end prostitution ring in New York City says she was bullied by Robert Mueller’s team when she was forced to testify in front of a grand jury in connection with the Russia investigation. Kristin Davis said she was forced to answer leading questions on the character of her longtime friend and colleague Roger Stone. “I left there feeling very sick to my stomach,” Davis said in an interview on Fox 5’s Good Day New York. She also says her subpoena was moved up and she was only given four days notice to get to Washington, D.C. “I basically said ‘I don’t have child care for a 2-year-old’ and they said ‘if you can talk to the media you can figure out how to get your son to D.C.’,” Davis said. She said they provided a plane ticket but the charges ended up on her credit card. She’s not expecting the government to fully reimburse her for the expenses. Stone is a longtime friend and supporter of President Trump and his name has been linked to the investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and the Trump presidential campaign. “I don’t think any collusion happened,” Davis said. Huh? If a reporter is in LA or miami you don't have to travel there to talk to them. I'd have told them to pound sand.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 14, 2018 17:37:29 GMT -6
Most of his donors are probably pussy-hat/vagina costume-wearers, green-haired millenial social justice warriors, and coffee shop poetry-reading hipsters. Whether or not these people qualify as "regular Americans" is debatable. Or mostly from the media. Or George Soros.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 15, 2018 10:06:07 GMT -6
Tim Ryan @tjryan93 Replying to @tjryan93 Prosecutors and defense attorneys said they will need about 2 hours each for their closing arguments.
Ellis said that's more than he expected. He told the attorneys if they think they can keep jurors' attention for 2 hours "then you live on a different planet than I do." 5:41 PM - Aug 10, 2018
58
32 people are talking about this
Tim Ryan @tjryan93 Closing arguments in the #ManafortTrial have been going for more than 45 minutes at this point
Prosecutor Greg Andres told the jury Manafort is "not above the law."
"Mr. Manafort lied to keep more money when he had it and he lied to get more money when he didn't," Andres said. 10:46 AM - Aug 15, 2018
102
51 people are talking about this
Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS #ManafortTrial Closing Arguments Thread - Prosecutor Andres emphasized to jurors: “If you have any doubt that he’s guilty of bank fraud or conspiracy to commit bank fraud at the Federal Savings Bank, then... 11:33 AM - Aug 15, 2018
80
68 people are talking about this
Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS Replying to @bbuchman_CNS all you need to remember is that he sent a fake profit and loss sheet to Federal Savings Bank. And you will recall from testimony by his tax preparer Heather Washkuhn that Davis Manafort Partners had no income at this time [but it was not reflected this way].” 11:33 AM - Aug 15, 2018
40
18 people are talking about this
Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS Replying to @bbuchman_CNS “Remember, he lied about where he lived and liens on his property. He altered some documents and backdated others,” Andres said. 11:33 AM - Aug 15, 2018
34
15 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 15, 2018 10:38:59 GMT -6
Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS Parting shots across the bow from prosec. Andres: "This case is about Paul Manafort and his money and how he kept that money [shielded from taxes]. The evidence is overwhelming to tax fraud and failure to register foreign bank accounts. (1/2) 12:28 PM - Aug 15, 2018
24
See Brandi Buchman's other Tweets
Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS Replying to @bbuchman_CNS Ladies and gentleman, this case is about when he didn’t have money and how he lied to get more.” (2/2) 12:28 PM - Aug 15, 2018
23
See Brandi Buchman's other Tweets
Update: Prosecutors wrapped up their closing arguments. Court goes to lunch recess until 1:30 PM ET. Manafort lawyers to deliver their closing arguments this afternoon.
Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS Prosecutors have wrapped up their closing arguments. We are on lunch recess until 1:30 PM EST. Then, when we reconvene, it's direct to defense closing arguments. #ManafortTrial @courthousenews 12:11 PM - Aug 15, 2018
68
32 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 15, 2018 11:14:52 GMT -6
Old man Rudy talking out of his butt again: "If Mueller not done in 2-3 weeks, we're going to unload on him like a ton of bricks".
He's so cute....in a senile, crazy uncle kind of way.
I bet Mueller is like, "oh noooooo's, Guiliani and Trump are threatening me...whatever shall I do??? I better get this thing wrapped up now!"
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 15, 2018 11:49:40 GMT -6
Old man Rudy talking out of his butt again: "If Mueller not done in 2-3 weeks, we're going to unload on him like a ton of bricks". He's so cute....in a senile, crazy uncle kind of way. I bet Mueller is like, "oh noooooo's, Guiliani and Trump are threatening me...whatever shall I do??? I better get this thing wrapped up now!" You have no idea how litigation works apparently
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 15, 2018 11:57:05 GMT -6
Old man Rudy talking out of his butt again: "If Mueller not done in 2-3 weeks, we're going to unload on him like a ton of bricks". He's so cute....in a senile, crazy uncle kind of way. I bet Mueller is like, "oh noooooo's, Guiliani and Trump are threatening me...whatever shall I do??? I better get this thing wrapped up now!" Comey fired McCabe fired Strzok (former lead investigator for Mueller team) fired Others demoted/fired ...... It’s done wonders so far.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 15, 2018 12:05:06 GMT -6
Old man Rudy talking out of his butt again: "If Mueller not done in 2-3 weeks, we're going to unload on him like a ton of bricks". He's so cute....in a senile, crazy uncle kind of way. I bet Mueller is like, "oh noooooo's, Guiliani and Trump are threatening me...whatever shall I do??? I better get this thing wrapped up now!" You have no idea how litigation works apparently Oh, is that what you call getting on television and talking out of one's ass? Litigation? Okay. lol
Let's just see where that litigat'n get's Trump and Old Man Rudy in 2-3 weeks. More mean tweets to come? Again, I bet Mueller is quaking in his boots.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 15, 2018 12:06:20 GMT -6
Old man Rudy talking out of his butt again: "If Mueller not done in 2-3 weeks, we're going to unload on him like a ton of bricks". He's so cute....in a senile, crazy uncle kind of way. I bet Mueller is like, "oh noooooo's, Guiliani and Trump are threatening me...whatever shall I do??? I better get this thing wrapped up now!" Comey fired McCabe fired Strzok (former lead investigator for Mueller team) fired Others demoted/fired ...... It’s done wonders so far. Yeah, that's what did it.
2-3 weeks. What a buffoon(s).
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 15, 2018 13:23:24 GMT -6
t.co/c9U3ok53ZU?amp=1Defense attorneys Richard Westling and Kevin Downing each delivered part of closing arguments for Manafort’s team. Westling began by telling jurors that he and other attorneys are “proud and honored” to have represented Manafort over the course of the trial and that he was confident in their ability to render a fair and impartial verdict. He emphasized the “pillars” of the justice system: presumption of innocence, burden of proof and reasonable doubt. “The presumption of innocence requires you to acquit unless there is definitive guilt,” Westling said. “Paul Manafort is innocent.” Reasonable doubt, Westling told jurors, “sometimes is very difficult to overcome.” “It is not enough for a person to be highly likely of guilt… we’re asking you to hold the government to its full burden because that’s what this entire system is built on,” he said. Manafort involved Gates, tax preparers Heather Washkuhn and Cindy Laporta, banker Dennis Raico and others in his financial dealings, Westling said, arguing that no secrecy was involved. When it comes to alleged bank fraud, Westling said the government’s claim that Manafort didn’t have enough money or needed extra money to pay for his “lifestyle,” and turned to crime to fund it, doesn’t add up. “At the end of 2016, Paul had money in other institutions totaling $8.6 million and his adjusted net worth was $21.3 million. Given this, how can they say he didn’t have the money? So, why did the government say this?” Westling argued the special counsel was forcibly fitting pieces together to serve their broader investigation. “This is a bank fraud case. It’s not enough to give wrong information to a bank. It has to be done with intent to deceive them and there is little, if any, evidence, other than from Rick Gates, that this is what is going on here,” he said. The banks never reported any abnormalities until the “special counsel showed up and started asking,” Westling added. The defense attorney argued prosecutors’ “goal was to stack the counts against Mr. Manafort and to give you a sense that the evidence was so overwhelming, there was only one conclusion.” Westling also told jurors to question why the government primarily called witnesses who did not have decision making authority at the various banks to which Manafort applied for loans. He noted Calk and the loan officers who determined whether Manafort received a loan did not testify at the trial. “None of them have been witnesses here in court,” Westling said, pausing. “It’s for you to determine what that means.” Westling sought to explain discrepancies in the loan applications by arguing the applications were true at the time Manafort submitted them. It was only later, when Manafort received new loans or made a different decision about how he planned to use a house, that the facts relevant to the applications changed, he said. He argued the government failed to prove his client intended to defraud the banks when he submitted his loan applications, saying if what Manafort did was bank fraud “we would have courts across the country filled with bank fraud.” In contrast to Andres’ plea for the jury to primarily focus on the documents in evidence, Westling urged jurors to rely on the witness testimony. He said emails can sometimes leave out the context necessary to clarify important issues such as intent. Before turning the podium over to fellow defense attorney Downing, Westling raised a question about Manafort’s signatures on several documents presented in the case. He noted previous witnesses, none of whom were handwriting experts, testified Manafort’s signatures appeared to differ across the documents. Downing picked up on this after he arranged his laptop and notebook on the podium, tying the discrepancies in the signatures to Gates. Downing argued that while Manafort removed his signature from the foreign accounts he controlled, Gates did not because he intended to embezzle money from Manafort. Downing went after Gates’ credibility, saying that while Gates had good recollection on direct examination from the government, “he fell apart and showed himself to be the liar that he is” when facing questions from the defense on cross-examination. After 23 witnesses took the stand for the prosecution, which also entered thousands of pages of documents into evidence, Manafort’s defense rested their case Tuesday without presenting any witnesses or evidence of their own.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 15, 2018 13:28:42 GMT -6
Comey fired McCabe fired Strzok (former lead investigator for Mueller team) fired Others demoted/fired ...... It’s done wonders so far. Yeah, that's what did it.
2-3 weeks. What a buffoon(s).
18+ months have past by. So, any of that evidence of collusion that Schiff & others talked about early on, or are we still waiting for any American,(let alone a Trump campaign person), to be charged/indicted for collusion. Heck, they still haven’t charged/indicted Carter Page for collusion yet,(& this is the one they justified falsifying documents to FISA court judges to get their warrants).
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 15, 2018 13:51:36 GMT -6
Yeah, that's what did it.
2-3 weeks. What a buffoon(s).
18+ months have past by. So, any of that evidence of collusion that Schiff & others talked about early on, or are we still waiting for any American,(let alone a Trump campaign person), to be charged/indicted for collusion. Heck, they still haven’t charged/indicted Carter Page for collusion yet,(& this is the one they justified falsifying documents to FISA court judges to get their warrants). I'm sorry, I'm failing to see what any of what you stated has anything to do with Giuliani's threats towards Mueller as to whether or not it will affect the timeline of his investigation?
I realize that you want Trump to be innocent really, really bad. And maybe he is. But two things: 1) your parroting of Trump, his legal team and supporters "defense" that no evidence has been found yet (you don't that....I know you WANT that to be true but OBJECTITVELY you don't know that) and no one has been indicted is complete conjecture based on your desire and belief that Trump is innocent. 2) Giuliani and Trump don't get to decide what the parameters of the investigation (as long as the investigation is allowed to continue) are, i.e. how long it should last, who should be interviewed, what questions should be asked and about what subjects. That's Mueller's job. One that I'm sure he takes very seriously and sees as a duty to his office. Listening to some childish, immature, blowhard and his kooky, senile, counsel are hardly enough to motivate Mueller, I'm sure.
But, go ahead and let Trump release a tweet barrage, "the likes the world has never seen before!!!". Come 2-3 weeks, I'm sure Mueller will still be hard at it as the politico guy associated with Roger Stone, will be testifying. Then, probably Roger Stone. So, I doubt this is anywhere close to being done.
And because it's not close to being done, you can bet that Trump will be hitting all of the culture war hot button issues in October/November in an attempt to get his base riled up for midterms.
But keep in mind, at the end of this, if he's not indicted of any crimes, then so be it. Many investigations prove the allegations false or at least lack enough evidence charge and prosecute. If that happens, he will be vindicated and that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 15, 2018 14:23:15 GMT -6
18+ months have past by. So, any of that evidence of collusion that Schiff & others talked about early on, or are we still waiting for any American,(let alone a Trump campaign person), to be charged/indicted for collusion. Heck, they still haven’t charged/indicted Carter Page for collusion yet,(& this is the one they justified falsifying documents to FISA court judges to get their warrants). I'm sorry, I'm failing to see what any of what you stated has anything to do with Giuliani's threats towards Mueller as to whether or not it will affect the timeline of his investigation?
I realize that you want Trump to be innocent really, really bad. And maybe he is. But two things: 1) your parroting of Trump, his legal team and supporters "defense" that no evidence has been found yet (you don't that....I know you WANT that to be true but OBJECTITVELY you don't know that) and no one has been indicted is complete conjecture based on your desire and belief that Trump is innocent. 2) Giuliani and Trump don't get to decide what the parameters of the investigation (as long as the investigation is allowed to continue) are, i.e. how long it should last, who should be interviewed, what questions should be asked and about what subjects. That's Mueller's job. One that I'm sure he takes very seriously and sees as a duty to his office. Listening to some childish, immature, blowhard and his kooky, senile, counsel are hardly enough to motivate Mueller, I'm sure.
But, go ahead and let Trump release a tweet barrage, "the likes the world has never seen before!!!". Come 2-3 weeks, I'm sure Mueller will still be hard at it as the politico guy associated with Roger Stone, will be testifying. Then, probably Roger Stone. So, I doubt this is anywhere close to being done.
And because it's not close to being done, you can bet that Trump will be hitting all of the culture war hot button issues in October/November in an attempt to get his base riled up for midterms.
But keep in mind, at the end of this, if he's not indicted of any crimes, then so be it. Many investigations prove the allegations false or at least lack enough evidence charge and prosecute. If that happens, he will be vindicated and that's fine.
Actually, my no American comment is not wishful thinking, I’m metely echoing what Rosenstein has stated twice now,(during both indictment Friday drops). www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/16/watch_live_deputy_ag_rod_rosenstein_announcement.htmlRosenstein: "No Allegation in This Indictment That Any American Had Any Knowledge" Of Russian Election Influence Operation Posted By Tim Hains On Date February 16, 2018 Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election. ...... Second set of indictments: www.bloombergquint.com/uselections/2018/07/13/mueller-indicts-12-russian-spies-for-hacking-in-2016-campaignNo Americans were charged Friday. But the indictment shows unidentified Americans -- including a person close to the Trump campaign and a candidate for Congress -- communicated with the Russian intelligence officers. Echoing Rosenstein, White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said that “today’s charges include no allegations of knowing involvement by anyone on the campaign and no allegations that the alleged hacking affected the election result.” ....... The lack of any evidence of “collusion “ after 18+ months is why team Mueller is going off the path and going after other unrelated crimes,(Manafort once again for bank fraud, tax evasion, etc). Unlike some here who are blinded by their dislike of the current administration for humorous reasons,( cough occasional lying cough), I’ve been up front that if any evidence should show up, then I’d gladly change my stance. However, this investigation is exactly like the Start investigation. Merely a political witch hunt to try and get something to impeach a sitting president. As for Rudy Giuliani goes, he’s right to call out Mueller’s “investigation “. If he keeps dragging it out,(which he’s doing), then he will go into the elections and could “inadvertently “ affect some of those,(which for one side I’m sure they’d gladly look the other way for that).
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 15, 2018 14:41:15 GMT -6
I'm sorry, I'm failing to see what any of what you stated has anything to do with Giuliani's threats towards Mueller as to whether or not it will affect the timeline of his investigation?
I realize that you want Trump to be innocent really, really bad. And maybe he is. But two things: 1) your parroting of Trump, his legal team and supporters "defense" that no evidence has been found yet (you don't that....I know you WANT that to be true but OBJECTITVELY you don't know that) and no one has been indicted is complete conjecture based on your desire and belief that Trump is innocent. 2) Giuliani and Trump don't get to decide what the parameters of the investigation (as long as the investigation is allowed to continue) are, i.e. how long it should last, who should be interviewed, what questions should be asked and about what subjects. That's Mueller's job. One that I'm sure he takes very seriously and sees as a duty to his office. Listening to some childish, immature, blowhard and his kooky, senile, counsel are hardly enough to motivate Mueller, I'm sure.
But, go ahead and let Trump release a tweet barrage, "the likes the world has never seen before!!!". Come 2-3 weeks, I'm sure Mueller will still be hard at it as the politico guy associated with Roger Stone, will be testifying. Then, probably Roger Stone. So, I doubt this is anywhere close to being done.
And because it's not close to being done, you can bet that Trump will be hitting all of the culture war hot button issues in October/November in an attempt to get his base riled up for midterms.
But keep in mind, at the end of this, if he's not indicted of any crimes, then so be it. Many investigations prove the allegations false or at least lack enough evidence charge and prosecute. If that happens, he will be vindicated and that's fine.
Actually, my no American comment is not wishful thinking, I’m metely echoing what Rosenstein has stated twice now,(during both indictment Friday drops). www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/16/watch_live_deputy_ag_rod_rosenstein_announcement.htmlRosenstein: "No Allegation in This Indictment That Any American Had Any Knowledge" Of Russian Election Influence Operation Posted By Tim Hains On Date February 16, 2018 Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election. ...... Second set of indictments: www.bloombergquint.com/uselections/2018/07/13/mueller-indicts-12-russian-spies-for-hacking-in-2016-campaignNo Americans were charged Friday. But the indictment shows unidentified Americans -- including a person close to the Trump campaign and a candidate for Congress -- communicated with the Russian intelligence officers. Echoing Rosenstein, White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said that “today’s charges include no allegations of knowing involvement by anyone on the campaign and no allegations that the alleged hacking affected the election result.” ....... The lack of any evidence of “collusion “ after 18+ months is why team Mueller is going off the path and going after other unrelated crimes,(Manafort once again for bank fraud, tax evasion, etc). Unlike some here who are blinded by their dislike of the current administration for humorous reasons,( cough occasional lying cough), I’ve been up front that if any evidence should show up, then I’d gladly change my stance. However, this investigation is exactly like the Start investigation. Merely a political witch hunt to try and get something to impeach a sitting president. As for Rudy Giuliani goes, he’s right to call out Mueller’s “investigation “. If he keeps dragging it out,(which he’s doing), then he will go into the elections and could “inadvertently “ affect some of those,(which for one side I’m sure they’d gladly look the other way for that). 1. Answer this one question: Does "THIS" indictment refer to the indictment that Rosenstein was speaking about AT THE TIME or is it inclusive of the WHOLE of Mueller's investigation to this point?
2. No indictments and no evidence given to the public (I don't think Mueller is obligated to release what evidence he has obtained to the public) is NOT evidence that this is a witch hunt or that no evidence and/or indictments are not forthcoming and certainly not evidence of his innocence. You're using the absence of something to prove an act wasn't committed DURING the investigation of said investigated act. Can you tell me any other scenario where that is the normal functioning of how an investigation works, especially one of this magnitude with so many people involved (I mean look how long the Clinton stuff lasted....which I have no problem with)?
3. Giuliani has the "right" to say whatever stupid thing he wants to say; I'm not denying him that right. But I reserve the right to laugh at him for threatening the lead investigator as if it's going to get him somewhere.
4. Let's say I agreed with you that the government overstepped it's bounds (provided no collusion is found) and thus were wrong for doing so and it was all a political witch hunt as you say. If it's found that Trump has committed major crimes (not getting a blowjob and lying about it) like tax evasion, money laundering, etc. etc. would you want him to be held accountable for his crimes? I know you like to label anyone who disagrees with you a liberal, so going with that, I'd want Obama, Hillary, JFK, anyone to be prosecuted if it could be proven that they committed a crime. Can you say the same?
I itemized those points so it would be easy for you to give a simple answer to each one without missing anything. Looking forward to your responses.
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 15, 2018 14:59:30 GMT -6
You have no idea how litigation works apparently Oh, is that what you call getting on television and talking out of one's ass? Litigation? Okay. lol
Let's just see where that litigat'n get's Trump and Old Man Rudy in 2-3 weeks. More mean tweets to come? Again, I bet Mueller is quaking in his boots.
Do you think Trump qas prepared to attack NK if they didnt capitulate? I do. They certainly do. And yea, you think 674+/- Whitehouse lawyers couldn't bury the 20+ Mueller has working for him in litigation? Dude, I know you despise Trump, but you don't have to dispute each and every point - especially when they are obvious.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 15, 2018 15:15:17 GMT -6
Oh, is that what you call getting on television and talking out of one's ass? Litigation? Okay. lol
Let's just see where that litigat'n get's Trump and Old Man Rudy in 2-3 weeks. More mean tweets to come? Again, I bet Mueller is quaking in his boots.
Do you think Trump qas prepared to attack NK if they didnt capitulate? I do. They certainly do. And yea, you think 674+/- Whitehouse lawyers couldn't bury the 20+ Mueller has working for him in litigation? Dude, I know you despise Trump, but you don't have to dispute each and every point - especially when they are obvious. What can I say....Trump creates a lot of material for himself.
Dude, it's a political message board. We're not curing cancer here or making decisions on foreign policy. We come here to argue in our spare time. Funny I never see you telling Soonervolved that he need not defend Trump and EVERYONE he's associated with on every point, and to criticize EVERYONE who has criticized Trump, on every point, via TL;DR articles that confirm his bias.
Why is that exactly? Hmmm.....I wonder
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 15, 2018 15:23:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 15, 2018 15:25:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 15, 2018 15:45:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 15, 2018 16:14:19 GMT -6
You have no idea how litigation works apparently Oh, is that what you call getting on television and talking out of one's ass? Litigation? Okay. lol
Let's just see where that litigat'n get's Trump and Old Man Rudy in 2-3 weeks. More mean tweets to come? Again, I bet Mueller is quaking in his boots.
A very Ickyish answer
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 15, 2018 16:54:09 GMT -6
Oh, is that what you call getting on television and talking out of one's ass? Litigation? Okay. lol
Let's just see where that litigat'n get's Trump and Old Man Rudy in 2-3 weeks. More mean tweets to come? Again, I bet Mueller is quaking in his boots.
A very Ickyish answer Oooh...touche. Pulling one right out of the Trump playbook I see. And to think, it only took you two responses to the same post to come up with it. Bravo. Come up with it on the drive home from work?
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 15, 2018 17:29:08 GMT -6
Oooh...touche. Pulling one right out of the Trump playbook I see. And to think, it only took you two responses to the same post to come up with it. Bravo. Come up with it on the drive home from work? When did you get so one-side-or-the-other? More importantly, when did you start thinking I was? Does no one have discussions anymore or is it all personal bombs and attacking perceived motives?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 15, 2018 18:56:31 GMT -6
saraacarter.com/exclusive-steele-anxious-over-comey-testimony-hopes-firewalls-will-hold/In the text, Steele writes Ohr, “Hi! Just wondering if you had any news? Obviously, we’re a bit apprehensive given scheduled appearance at Congress on Monday. Hoping that important firewalls will hold. Many thanks.” Ohr writes back later that day, saying “Sorry, no new news. I believe my earlier information is still accurate. I will let you know immediately if there is any change.” It is not certain, based on the limited communications obtained by Congress between the pair, what Ohr was referring to when he discussed “earlier information” that he delivered to Steele. The exchange raises questions, according to a government source who asked, “What did Steele mean by important firewalls before Comey testimony? And what did Ohr mean by earlier information he provided?” The source noted that the ‘firewall’ statement seemed raise similar questions posed by lawmakers after (now-fired) FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok sent the infamous “insurance policy” texts to his paramour, former FBI Attorney Lisa Page.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 15, 2018 19:01:22 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/08/15/republicans-doj-george-toscas/DOJ attorney George Toscas will be deposed Thursday as part of a congressional investigation into possible FISA abuse. Staffers with the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees will quiz Toscas about DOJ official Bruce Ohr. Ohr will be interviewed on Aug. 28. House Republicans will resume an investigation of the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the Russia investigation on Thursday with a deposition of George Z. Toscas, a national security attorney at the Department of Justice. Toscas, who handles counterterrorism and counterespionage cases, will appear for a deposition at 10 a.m. before staffers with the House Judiciary and House Government & Oversight Committees, a source familiar with the matter tells The Daily Caller News Foundation. Toscas was one of 17 current and former FBI and Justice Department officials included on a list submitted to the two House committees by California Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Nunes suggested interviewing Toscas and the other officials regarding an investigation into the FBI and Justice Department’s possible abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 16, 2018 5:01:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 16, 2018 7:50:11 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2018/08/16/bruce-ohr-may-broken-law-pushing-wifes-opposition-research-fbi/Bruce Ohr May Have Broken More Than The Law By Pushing His Wife’s Opposition Research To The FBI Did Ohr 'personally and substantially' participate in a particular matter in which his spouse had a 'financial interest' while he worked for the Justice Department? Adam Mill By Adam Mill AUGUST 16, 2018 A review of publicly available information causes a reasonable person to wonder whether Bruce Ohr broke the law by promoting his wife’s anti-Trump research to the FBI when he was working at the Justice Department. The law prohibits public officials from involvement in matters in which their spouse has a financial interest. The question is, Did Ohr “personally and substantially” participate in a particular matter in which his spouse had a “financial interest” while he was employed by the Justice Department as the assistant attorney general? Let’s take a closer look. Recall that the Hillary Clinton campaign (through its law firm Perkins Coie) hired opposition research firm Fusion GPS to generate dirt on Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign. Fusion GPS in turn hired former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the Trump dossier containing as yet unproven allegations of Russian dirt on Trump. We learned in December that Ohr met with Fusion GPS in November 2016 — a critical time frame — in his capacity as the associate deputy attorney general. Former FBI agent Peter Strzok has confirmed Ohr fed the FBI documents pertinent to the investigation into Trump’s Russia ties, and The Hill reported the FBI used Ohr to continue collecting information from Steele, even after it terminated him as a source for leaking word of the investigation to the media. John Solomon filled in the contours of Ohr’s role in the investigation, writing in The Hill of recently disclosed emails: They also confirm that Ohr later became a critical conduit of continuing information from Steele after the FBI ended the Brit’s role as an informant. … The FBI specifically instructed Steele that he could no longer ‘operate to obtain any intelligence whatsoever on behalf of the FBI,’ those memos show. Yet, Steele asked Ohr in the Jan. 31 text exchange if he could continue to help feed information to the FBI: ‘Just want to check you are OK, still in the situ and able to help locally as discussed, along with your Bureau colleagues.’ ‘I’m still here and able to help as discussed,’ Ohr texted back. ‘I’ll let you know if that changes.’ Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy recently expressed alarm that Ohr would insert himself into the ongoing Russia investigation. Understandably so. The FBI acts as the Justice Department’s investigator, and normally must convince the DOJ that the quality and quantity of gathered evidence will support a case before a federal court. When a senior DOJ prosecutor gives the FBI information, it comes with the DOJ’s implied endorsement of the evidence. This kind of implied endorsement may have played a role in the FBI’s decision to pay Steele to continue research on the Trump dossier. Ohr sponsored Steele’s research in spite of the fact that, as Steele later admitted, critical allegations in the dossier remain unverified. In particular, Steele now refuses to stand by his allegations of Russian hacking. Steele reportedly said his dossier allegations were never supposed to be made public, which is incongruous with his dissemination of the allegations to Ohr and his decision to leak word of the investigation to the press. Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson disclosed in a sworn declaration that Fusion GPS paid Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, a Russia expert, to help research and analyze potential opposition research on Trump. Curiously, it appears Ohr’s relationship with both Simpson and Steele predated his wife’s work for Fusion GPS, which raises the question whether Simpson may have hired her to gain favor with him. We don’t know how long Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, but Simpson’s December 2017 declaration indicates bank records from August 2015 through that time reflected she contracted with the firm to help research Trump. Ohr’s promotion of his wife’s research to the FBI potentially helped stoke continued demand for her services. As pointed out by The Daily Caller, Ohr failed to disclose that his wife was being paid by Fusion GPS in his mandatory public financial disclosure form. The purpose of the form is to “identify potential or actual conflicts of interest.” Thus, The Daily Caller posits that when Ohr became involved in brokering his wife’s Trump-Russia research to the FBI, he deprived DOJ of the opportunity to identify this potential conflict of interest by failing to disclose the source of her “consulting” income. The DOJ had a legal right to know that Ohr’s wife was personally profiting from the research he promoted to the FBI. One question that remains unanswered is whether Ohr also had a role in approving or overseeing the Trump-Russia investigation from within the DOJ. As noted by The Daily Mail, he “worked closely” with both Sally Yates, former assistant attorney general, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Also of note is that both Yates and Rosenstein signed off on one or more of the spy warrants for Trump associate Carter Page. If either Yates or Rosenstein consulted Ohr on the propriety of those applications, Ohr would have been in a position to endorse the validity of research for which his spouse was paid. Violation of the law prohibiting public officials from involving themselves in matters in which their spouse has a financial interest (18 U.S.C. §208) is a crime punishable for up to five years in prison, if the conduct is deemed willful. The DOJ has the power to enforce this law civilly and criminally, and as Ohr’s employer, has a responsibility to do so if he violated it. So the DOJ’s perceived inaction in response to Ohr’s actions may set a government-wide precedent. Steele openly sought to use the dossier to interfere with the election. Ohr promoted his work in spite of the fact that Steele made no secret to Ohr that he was desperate to stop Trump from becoming president. And he acted on it. Solomon reports, based on notes he reviewed of Ohr’s meeting with Steele: “‘Glen asked Chris to speak to the Mother Jones reporter. It was Glen’s Hail Mary attempt,’ Ohr wrote.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 16, 2018 8:02:50 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/16/author-of-infamous-russia-email-to-don-jr-admits-it-was-hyperbolic-publicist-puff/Rob Goldstone, the English publicist and music manager, admitted that he was “using a little artistic language” and he “puffed it” when he sent a much publicized email to Donald Trump Jr. to set up the infamous Trump Tower meeting, claiming to possess incriminating information and documents on Hillary Clinton originating with “the Crown prosecutor of Russia.” “I mean publicist puff is how they get meetings,” he added, referring to the work of a publicist. Goldstone made the comments in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed in full by Breitbart News. The testimony was given in December 2017 and publicly released several months ago. It is newly relevant following the renewed news media spotlight on the Trump Tower meeting while most of Goldstone’s nearly 250-pages of testimony remain entirely unreported by the news media. On June 3, 2016, Goldstone sent the following email to Trump Jr.: Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump — helped along by Aras and Emin. What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly? I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first. The email was widely cited by the news media, with many claiming the message represented some sort of collusion with Russia. Russia does not have a “Crown prosecutor.” Rhona Graff served as President Donald Trump’s longtime secretary. In a statement to the Senate committee, Goldstone conceded that he utilized the “strongest hyperbolic language” to secure the meeting with Trump Jr. Goldstone conceded that he had no factual basis to back up his email to Trump Jr. claiming that any such purported opposition information on Clinton, which never actually surfaced, was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Asked to further explain his admitted use of “hyperbolic language” in the email, Goldstone replied that “I had puffed it and used some keywords that I thought would attract Don Jr.’s attention.” He said he was “embarrassed” that he even set up the meeting, and described Trump campaign officials present as viewing the get-together as a waste of time. Like all other witnesses who have spoken publicly, Goldstone, who attended the Trump Tower meeting, said there was no dirt presented on Clinton and that the meeting focused largely on the Magnitsky Act, which sanctions Russian officials accused of involvement in the death of a Russian tax accountant, as well as talk about a Russian tax evasion scheme and alleged connections to the Democratic National Committee.
|
|