Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
Neither having to do with the investigation.
Click to expand...

A little misleading. The investigation may have primarily been motivated by Russian interference, but may prosecute any federal crimes arising from the investigation. Thus, these various indictments are all part of the scope of Mueller's probe, though not obviously related to the initial impetus.
 
River said:
We're supposedly going to see this evidence very soon if it gets declassified as was ordered by the President. Yet to be seen. From one person that have seen some of those documents -- here is what they say.

Click to expand...
Youre citing Nunes? Devin Nunes? The undisputed champion of Trump bootlickers and a proven liar extraordinaire?!?

No quantity of laughing dogs would suffice.
 
phiwum said:
A little misleading. The investigation may have primarily been motivated by Russian interference, but may prosecute any federal crimes arising from the investigation. Thus, these various indictments are all part of the scope of Mueller's probe, though not obviously related to the initial impetus.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that. However, while it is entirely proper for Mueller to indict on the crimes he uncovers, the indictments he's handed out so far don't actually say anything about the original question. So when TGZ says Manafort got indicted, it's misleading. We know what question Mueller set out to answer. Finding answers to other questions doesn't actually answer that first question.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I agree with all of that. However, while it is entirely proper for Mueller to indict on the crimes he uncovers, the indictments he's handed out so far don't actually say anything about the original question. What happens if Mueller closes his investigation in another year or two, having charged a ridiculous number of Trump associates, but never actually charging any of them with interfering in the 2016 election?
Click to expand...

Then they will be absolved of the allegations of colluding with the Russians. And still found guilty (or pleaded guilty) to some other charges.

And, hopefully, we will learn more about the Russian operation itself.

ETA: I really don't understand your question. The answer is obvious. If Mueller's only indictments of Trump associates is for charges other than Russian collusion, then it is a job well done. We will learn about some bad things the associates allegedly did, and we will learn that Mueller couldn't find good evidence for involvement in the Russian interference. This is a perfectly good outcome (as long as we trust that the absence of evidence is competently asserted -- which I am sure some may balk at that, but I doubt I'm one of them. So far as I can tell, Mueller is doing his job well.)
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
and of course you are the Deputy AG and therefore have access to all the evidence.
Click to expand...

The text of the indictments is the evidence of what Manafort was indicted for.

What exactly are you claiming, here? That there might be secret indictments that neither of us have seen and know nothing about, that could indict Manafort for other things?

That the text of these indictments specifies one crime, but secretly they refer to a different crime?
 
Of course there is other stuff: that is normal for an organized crime investigation.
You don't bring out the big crime until you have the boss nailed down
 
varwoche said:
Youre citing Nunes? Devin Nunes? The undisputed champion of Trump bootlickers and a proven liar extraordinaire?!?

No quantity of laughing dogs would suffice.
Click to expand...


Will that laughing turn into tears if what he is suggesting is true? Me thinks so.
 
Cabbage said:
Can you elaborate on what he said? I'm a bit busy and don't have time to read it thoroughly, myself.
Click to expand...

So yeah, any time you're prepared to finish making whatever point you were attempting to make with that link, I'll be right here waiting.... Thanks.
 
Cabbage said:
I get the impression it will turn into tears if it is false, too--Your tears.
Click to expand...

I hold no investments into the truth, but I do seek it no matter which it it falls partisanship wise. Whoever is guilty on either side of the fence earned their consequences.

As for being your overview, no thanks you can read the document like anyone else if interested. If not, enjoy being laughed at when you refer me to an article that has 3 authors about the said document I linked.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Of course there is other stuff: that is normal for an organized crime investigation.
You don't bring out the big crime until you have the boss nailed down
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that.

I'm just trying to clear up my confusion about what exactly Manafort has been indicted for. Do you agree that regardless of what may be revealed in the future, Manafort has not yet been indicted for interfering in the 2016 US election?
 
River said:
I hold no investments into the truth, but I do seek it no matter which it it falls partisanship wise. Whoever is guilty on either side of the fence earned their consequences.

As for being your overview, no thanks you can read the document like anyone else if interested. If not, enjoy being laughed at when you refer me to an article that has 3 authors about the said document I linked.
Click to expand...

If there was nothing there, the Trump campaign was exceedingly unfortunate.

Can you think of an innocent explanation for their behaviour around the Trump Tower meeting - both the meeting itself, and their attempts to manage the story?

I suppose it could be an unfortunate coincidence that within four hours of arranging that meeting, ostensibly to get dirt on Clinton, Trump promised a press conference with dirt on Clinton.
 
River said:
I hold no investments into the truth, but I do seek it no matter which it it falls partisanship wise. Whoever is guilty on either side of the fence earned their consequences.

As for being your overview, no thanks you can read the document like anyone else if interested. If not, enjoy being laughed at when you refer me to an article that has 3 authors about the said document I linked.
Click to expand...

It looks to me like we have an anachronism. The *cause* was Papadopoulos blabbing to Alexander Downer that he (P-dop) had knowledge of Russia possessing Hillary's hacked emails. Australian authorities then told US officials, providing probable cause and beginning the investigation.

Now, that happened in May-July 2016. Now, the partial *results* of the investigation may differ in the details somewhat, but that link you provided is dated October 5, 2017.

You're going to have to explain to me how it is relevant to the probable cause of an investigation that began over a year before that, or you position is dismissed as being anachronistic and hence entirely irrelevant.

For example, if, in some hypothetical case, probable cause is present to search a property for a murdered corpse and subsequently *no corpse is found*, that doesn't simply negate the validity of the probable cause.

If, as I assume you're claiming, the P-dop investigation went nowhere, that does not imply that it didn't originally provide the probable cause necessary to commence the investigation.

So just what is the point you're trying to make?
 
Cabbage said:
It looks to me like we have an anachronism. The *cause* was Papadopoulos blabbing to Alexander Downer that he (P-dop) had knowledge of Russia possessing Hillary's hacked emails. Australian authorities then told US officials, providing probable cause and beginning the investigation.

Now, that happened in May-July 2016. Now, the partial *results* of the investigation may differ in the details somewhat, but that link you provided is dated October 5, 2017.

You're going to have to explain to me how it is relevant to the probable cause of an investigation that began over a year before that, or you position is dismissed as being anachronistic and hence entirely irrelevant.

For example, if, in some hypothetical case, probable cause is present to search a property for a murdered corpse and subsequently *no corpse is found*, that doesn't simply negate the validity of the probable cause.

If, as I assume you're claiming, the P-dop investigation went nowhere, that does not imply that it didn't originally provide the probable cause necessary to commence the investigation.

So just what is the point you're trying to make?
Click to expand...

Not quite sure I'm following you here. Did someone claim the file I linked was used to start the investigation? I didn't It's the "US v. George Papadopoulos - Statement of the Offense"

If you're looking for the indictment, you can look here.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1038741/download
 
River said:
Did someone claim the file I linked was used to start the investigation?
Click to expand...

This is where I remind you that, yes, the discussion was whether or not probable cause existed to even *begin* the investigation:

River said:
No, the aim of it was to go searching for a crime with no evidence of one.
Click to expand...

Please try to keep up. That way, you can avoid posting links that came well AFTER the beginning of the investigation and, hence, are irrelevant to the issue of probable cause. Australia contacting US officials concerning P-dop absolutely justified an investigation to determine just what the hell is going on. And again, this is May-July 2016. Any knowledge that came out in October 2017 is irrelevant to the state of affairs in 2016.

So, for probably the fifth time: WHAT IS THE POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE?
 
Remember that ginned up outrage over Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac?

Rosenstein joined Trump aboard Air Force One for a trip to Florida, where the two men attended the International Association of Chiefs of Police's annual convention.

"Thank you as well to our Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for being here, flew down together," Trump said at the event. "The press wants to know, 'What did you talk about?' 'We had a very good talk,' I will say. That became a very big story, actually. We had a good talk."

Trump and Rosenstein had been scheduled to meet last week to discuss The New York Times report that flung Rosenstein into limbo. The report claimed Rosenstein discussed secretly recording Trump and using the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. They postponed the meeting amid the Kavanaugh confirmation battle and speculation has abounded that Trump might fire Rosenstein.
Click to expand...
 
Cabbage said:
This is where I remind you that, yes, the discussion was whether or not probable cause existed to even *begin* the investigation:



Please try to keep up. That way, you can avoid posting links that came well AFTER the beginning of the investigation and, hence, are irrelevant to the issue of probable cause. Australia contacting US officials concerning P-dop absolutely justified an investigation to determine just what the hell is going on. And again, this is May-July 2016. Any knowledge that came out in October 2017 is irrelevant to the state of affairs in 2016.

So, for probably the fifth time: WHAT IS THE POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE?
Click to expand...

The point I'm trying to make is: Nothing you linked ties this to Trump personally. Also according to your linked article Kushner and Jr lied? They may have. Does this mean something illegal happened at the meeting? (evidence is required of that crime, or evidence that a crime will be commited to reach the "probably cause" threshold) The file I linked details some of the information concerning the "dirt" on clinton and how that meeting came to be.
 
Last edited:
Stacko said:
Remember that ginned up outrage over Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac?
Click to expand...

The Hypocrisy police demand two things of us: From me, they demand I be as outraged about Trump-Rosenstein as I was outraged about Clinton-Lynch. From you, they demand that you be as dismissive of Trump-Rosenstein as you were dismissive of Clinton-Lynch.

The question before us is: Will we give in to the demands of the Hypocrisy Police? I will if you will. Deal? I don't mind adding ceteris paribus and mutatis mutandi clauses, if that helps you answer the question.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom