Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
I think the fact that Manafort was wiretapped might tell us more about the people in charge of the FBI than it does about Manafort.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
It shows they're more competent than Manafort.

This truly IS "stupid Watergate" When it's all said and done, not even the most stubborn sycophant will be able to deny it.
The ones who still do will rightfully be as mocked as 9/11 truthers.
 
Emily's Cat said:
*Sigh*
Click to expand...

You don't need to start every post with a prelude broadcasting your outrage or frustration.

Will you please, please, stop framing things you disagree with as lies and dishonesty?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with agreement or lack thereof. You are in possession of all the information and yet you keep pretending that it doesn't mean what it clearly means. There are few words to describe this sort of behaviour, none of them charitable towards you.

You've been very keen on painting this as a mere diagreement, because then it just becomes a matter of opinion. But facts are not matters of opinion.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile, in the real world, it's starting to look like 45s claim of wiretapping may be based on recordings that that Mueller had of him and Manafort.

But, yeah, probably nothing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, CNN is now reporting that the FBI is focusing on tax and financial crimes Manafort allegedly committed as far back as 2006:

The FBI's warrant for a July search of Manafort's Alexandria, Virginia, home said the investigation centered on possible crimes committed as far back as January 2006, according to a source briefed on the investigation.

...

The search, an unusually hard-nosed tactic in a probe that centers on possible tax and financial crimes, began before dawn as Manafort and his wife lay in bed, according to sources briefed on the matter.

FBI agents entered with guns drawn and insisted on searching Kathleen Manafort for weapons, a standard part of FBI searches but a jarring event for the Manaforts, the sources said.
Click to expand...

I find these tactics to be off-putting, to say the least. They should offend any honest civil libertarian.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Does it make any sense at all to conclude that the accusations have been accurate, and that solid corroborating evidence has been found... and that this information has NOT been shared by the media? Given the prominence of Trump in the media and the consistency of accusation leveled at him, and the volume of anonymous confidential insider information being provided to the media that represents Trump negatively... what possible reason is there to assume that any of the accusations has been corroborated but nobody is sharing that information? What sense would that make?
Click to expand...
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. Because the people investigating those things are the justice department, not the media. Whereas the media needs to spread the word to call attention to something, the DoJ actively benefits from suspects not knowing how much they know. I'd be quite curious to hear what has or hasn't panned out, but frankly I don't know because as far as I can tell Mueller is running a tight ship.

But that's besides the point, which is: why do you continue to act as if we don't notice you switching from "I just don't see a single shred of evidence that meeting with Russians and advocating for Russians and promising Russian hacking means some deal with Russia was reached" to "come ooon, guys, do you really think this thing I'm asserting without any evidence can't be true? Reeeally?" Speculate, or don't speculate, but expect people to remark on it when you go from one to the other.

sunmaster14 said:
I find these tactics to be off-putting, to say the least. They should offend any honest civil libertarian.
Click to expand...
Could have been worse. Imagine if they were black.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
Well, CNN is now reporting that the FBI is focusing on tax and financial crimes Manafort allegedly committed as far back as 2006:



I find these tactics to be off-putting, to say the least. They should offend any honest civil libertarian.
Click to expand...


Yeah.

Search for one of those among today's GOP. Tougher task than Diogenes ever faced.

Probably have to restrict the search for the ones that believe in civil liberties for Republicans.

Anybody else? Not so much.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
<snip>

Could have been worse. Imagine if they were black.
Click to expand...

I can, actually. There would be a separate thread on it, and all of the usual racial grievance-mongers would be active in it. There would be non-stop news stories about how racist the FBI is, and the justice system in general. And there would probably be civil unrest, perhaps with protesters blocking traffic and the like during rush hour.
 
Soooo.

According to a former U.S. official, the intercepts picked up conversations between Manafort and Russian individuals about the campaign. The intercepts potentially include conversations between Manafort and President Trump.*

The recordings are now part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, which appears to be intensely focused on Manafort.*
Click to expand...
 
tyr_13 said:
Why in this case specifically? Is that just a general comment?
Click to expand...

Both actually. Taking them in the reverse order, I think that such heavy-handed tactics are unnecessary for tax and financial crimes committed many years in the past. The evidence here isn't like a bag of heroin that somebody could flush down the toilet. If documents proving financial crimes exist in a house, then the owner clearly passed up years' of opportunities to destroy them. Why would he all of a sudden destroy them on that particular day? And is destroying them quickly even feasible? In such cases, I think the tactic is meant to send a message (i.e. one that intimidates), and not to increase the probability of finding probative evidence.

In this specific case, you have a special prosecutor, with virtually unlimited resources, going after a guy for alleged crimes which have little to do with the investigation he was authorized to conduct. By definition, crimes committed years before Trump even started his campaign, is outside Mueller's purview. Also, as Dershowitz has noted, very few people could withstand the scrutiny of such a high-powered investigation. Almost any businessman, and particularly an aggressive one like Manafort, has meandered into a grey area of the law from time to time, or at least done business with somebody who has. This is fertile ground for prosecutors to harass you, damage your reputation, and rack up your legal bills, in addition to threatening you to plea to a lesser crime that you might not have committed just to avoid facing a small probability of going to jail for many year.

The whole investigation strikes me as extraordinarily unfair. It also strikes me as illegal. A special counsel is not supposed to be appointed unless there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. And yet Mueller was appointed pursuant to a letter from the Deputy Attorney General which did not even allege the existence of a crime, let alone establish probable cause for its existence.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Both actually. Taking them in the reverse order, I think that such heavy-handed tactics are unnecessary for tax and financial crimes committed many years in the past.
Click to expand...

It did not say the alleged crimes were exclusive to 2006, only that they go back as far as 2006. The article leaves open the possibility that the crimes stretch from 2006 to present day.
 
Cabbage said:
It did not say the alleged crimes were exclusive to 2006, only that they go back as far as 2006. The article leaves open the possibility that the crimes stretch from 2006 to present day.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter. Tax and financial crimes are not the kinds of things for which you need early morning, armed raids. Such crimes develop over long periods of time, and the evidence is generally embedded in the banking system in some fashion. It is not the kind of crime where all of the evidence can be flushed down the toilet.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Both actually. Taking them in the reverse order, I think that such heavy-handed tactics are unnecessary for tax and financial crimes committed many years in the past.The evidence here isn't like a bag of heroin that somebody could flush down the toilet. If documents proving financial crimes exist in a house, then the owner clearly passed up years' of opportunities to destroy them. Why would he all of a sudden destroy them on that particular day? And is destroying them quickly even feasible? In such cases, I think the tactic is meant to send a message (i.e. one that intimidates), and not to increase the probability of finding probative evidence.
Click to expand...

It's quite bold of you to make such unsupported assertions, when you literally have almost zero evidence ... isn't it ?

sunmaster14 said:
In this specific case, you have a special prosecutor, with virtually unlimited resources, going after a guy for alleged crimes which have little to do with the investigation he was authorized to conduct. By definition, crimes committed years before Trump even started his campaign, is outside Mueller's purview.
Click to expand...

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller special counsel in May, and Mueller was given a broad mandate to investigate and prosecute any potential crimes he uncovered.

sunmaster14 said:
Also, as Dershowitz has noted, very few people could withstand the scrutiny of such a high-powered investigation. Almost any businessman, and particularly an aggressive one like Manafort, has meandered into a grey area of the law from time to time, or at least done business with somebody who has. This is fertile ground for prosecutors to harass you, damage your reputation, and rack up your legal bills, in addition to threatening you to plea to a lesser crime that you might not have committed just to avoid facing a small probability of going to jail for many year.
Click to expand...

LMAO at your description "meandered into a grey area." Is that an accurate characterization of Paul Manafort in your world ?

sunmaster14 said:
The whole investigation strikes me as extraordinarily unfair. It also strikes me as illegal. A special counsel is not supposed to be appointed unless there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. And yet Mueller was appointed pursuant to a letter from the Deputy Attorney General which did not even allege the existence of a crime, let alone establish probable cause for its existence.
Click to expand...

OF course you think it's unfair, Republicans are being investigated. I'm glad to see you staying on message with the Andrew McCarthy talking points though ... based on his your arguments, you seem to be a big fan.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
And, yes, I believe we will find out shortly who is right. I'd wager that CNN will be making an embarrassing correction to its headline and subheadline in the next few days.
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
I'll circle back Saturday ... try not to spend too much time between now and then trying to come up with reasons why you're not actually wrong !
Click to expand...

No correction. Tick Tock.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom