Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

[Stacko]

There's no such thing. It really is basically a cult at this point. They go way beyond the so-called BushBots of yore.

I think you've got some rose colored glasses on about how completely out of its mind America went after 9/11. It was the era of "not supporting the war in Iraq = opposing the troops" and congress renaming French fries to spite an ally for following America in its folly.

 

[acbytesla]

There's no such thing. It really is basically a cult at this point. They go way beyond the so-called BushBots of yore.

I agree for the most part. But I'm convinced that at least some of them are at least a little rational.

 

[acbytesla]

Mueller prosecutors told Gates before he flipped: “they didn't need his cooperation against Manafort, according to a person familiar with the investigation, and instead wanted to hear what he knew about contact between the Trump campaign and Russians.”​

That makes sense. The documents and the testimonies from the accountants and bankers sure seem like there was more than enough to cook Manafort's goose.

 

[kellyb]

I think you've got some rose colored glasses on about how completely out of its mind America went after 9/11. It was the era of "not supporting the war in Iraq = opposing the troops" and congress renaming French fries to spite an ally for following America in its folly.

Maybe.
I do remember people defending torture, "if you're not for us you're against us", and "If you have nothing to hide, why worry?" The Freedom Fries were just silly.

But this sort of stuff still seems next-level crazy: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-news-outlets-republicans-say-poll/925536002/

Nearly half of Republicans think Trump should be able to close news outlets: poll

 

[The_Animus]

Cabbage, what happened at the meeting?

What meeting? They've never met with any Russians.

 

[Segnosaur]

No defense being offered. Clearly someone wants to see what Mueller is offering.

Not necessarily... Trebuchet posted a link to someone giving reasons why lawyers may not necessarily want to offer a defense. For example:

- They may do so as a way to show confidence in their client's innocence (i.e. "The prosecution's case is so weak we don't have to bother defending against it")

- The defense may realize that any defense they mount might cause more problems for Manafort and hurt his case more than it helps (e.g. witnesses revealing more damaging information during cross examination)

- Putting Manafort on the stand might open up all sorts of problems (such as perjury, or even just appearing unsympathetic), but if they put up a defense WITHOUT putting Manafort on the stand then juries can view that with suspicion

- Then there's also the whole "Will Trump give him a pardon" argument

 

[TheSupermeerkat]

- Then there's also the whole "Will Trump give him a pardon" argument

I thought this trial was at state level, and that the outcome of such things can’t be pardoned. Isn’t it only federal level crimes that can be pardoned?

 

[WilliamSeger]

I thought this trial was at state level, and that the outcome of such things can’t be pardoned. Isn’t it only federal level crimes that can be pardoned?

No, this is a federal court. The President can only pardon federal crimes, but if Manafort is charged by a state, that state's governor could pardon him.

 

[acbytesla]

I thought this trial was at state level, and that the outcome of such things can’t be pardoned. Isn’t it only federal level crimes that can be pardoned?

No, this is a Federal court. It is thought that Manafort committed so many financial crimes that New York State, Connecticut and Virginia could all prove he broke their State laws as well.

 

[TheSupermeerkat]

No, this is a Federal court. It is thought that Manafort committed so many financial crimes that New York State, Connecticut and Virginia could all prove he broke their State laws as well.

No, this is a federal court. The President can only pardon federal crimes, but if Manafort is charged by a state, that state's governor could pardon him.

Cheers for the clarification chaps.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You aren't teaching me anything. I know all this. And I don't find your interpretation credible. To construe speech as a "thing of value" in this context is an overbroad interpretation which will run afoul of the first amendment. And name calling doesn't make you any more persuasive.



It was a joke. Just like Obama suggesting his enemies would be audited was a joke. You can argue that it was inappropriate, that even as a joke it pushed boundaries that shouldn't be pushed, and in both cases I would agree. But that doesn't suffice for a criminal complaint.

You should talk to this guy about whether it was a joke or not.

 

[Cain]

There's no such thing. It really is basically a cult at this point. They go way beyond the so-called BushBots of yore.

I disagree. It's not as bad as post-9/11, AND Trump hasn't been as bad as Bush Jr.

Thankfully, both were limited by their own incompetence. After 9/11, people were chilled from saying virtually anything negative about the president. I recall these two jerk-off talk radio show hosts spent an hour asking if they should play an audio clip where Bush said something objectively dumb (we wouldn't want to diminish Dear Leader in our time of national crisis, now would we?).

This White House is like Bush's second term: scandal plagued, nation-divided. The first term of 43's presidency was scarier, but by the second one he was more constrained.

Followers were not as fanatically devoted to Bush the second time around, though I was surprised at how fast so many rank-and-file Republicans jettisoned the guy in 2015/6. During the election, Trump made many critical remarks of the last Republican president... and the hoi polloi were OK with it. He also said what he said about John McCain. Then yesterday the president -- not a candidate -- called a woman a dog.

It would be nice to think that this a Trump effect -- only he can get away with this sort of thing. The darker interpretation is that whoever ascends to the leadership role will be held unaccountable because of the R next to their name.

 

[phiwum]

I think you've got some rose colored glasses on about how completely out of its mind America went after 9/11. It was the era of "not supporting the war in Iraq = opposing the troops" and congress renaming French fries to spite an ally for following America in its folly.

To be fair, I think they're Belgian too begin with.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not suggesting it's off topic, merely superfluous.

Is it that you don't like reading the Tweets because they are a constant reminder of how bad Trump is?

I don't understand the complaints, I find the Tweet postings useful.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

+1

Especially since only selected tweets are mirrored here. Post all, or none. Unless a specific tweet adds to an ongoing topic of debate. But if yoz only have the latest tweet that irks you, and you post it without comment, you might as well leave it be.

You are welcome to post the 'good' ones. I don't believe there are any but maybe you can correct my misconception.

 

[pgwenthold]

Is it that you don't like reading the Tweets because they are a constant reminder of how bad Trump is?

I don't understand the complaints, I find the Tweet postings useful.

I understand that there are ways to see the tweets if you really want to, but I think, in this case, that your first sentence is probably more to the point.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweeted

"The Rigged Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on as the “originators and founders” of this scam continue to be fired and demoted for their corrupt and illegal activity. All credibility is gone from this terrible Hoax, and much more will be lost as it proceeds. No Collusion!"

"The action (the Strzok firing) was a decisive step in the right direction in correcting the wrongs committed by what has been described as Comey’s skinny inner circle.” Chris Swecker, former FBI Assistant Director."

 

[Ziggurat]

Is it that you don't like reading the Tweets because they are a constant reminder of how bad Trump is?

I'm not the one experiencing distress upon reading Trump's tweets.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump Tweeted

"The Rigged Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on as the “originators and founders” of this scam continue to be fired and demoted for their corrupt and illegal activity. All credibility is gone from this terrible Hoax, and much more will be lost as it proceeds. No Collusion!"

"The action (the Strzok firing) was a decisive step in the right direction in correcting the wrongs committed by what has been described as Comey’s skinny inner circle.” Chris Swecker, former FBI Assistant Director."

This has been Trump's objective all along and he's done a darn fine job of convincing his supporters of it. He could not control what Mueller investigated and every action Trump has made is demonstrative of someone who knows Mueller will find something damning. The more he discredits the investigation, the more willing his supporters will be to excuse anything it finds no matter how damning.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm not the one experiencing distress upon reading Trump's tweets.

The consensus here is approval of Captain Swoop posting them. Your "friendly advice" has been given several times and rejected several times. Why not just let it go? Enough already.