Mueller Investigation pt5

[CapelDodger]

Ambulance chasers can always make a buck is an overly litigious society.

I'm not so sure : it's a very competitive market.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm not so sure : it's a very competitive market.

Indeed. The first thing I show anyone who expresses an interest in a legal career is the most recent first year salary distribution.

 

[Drysdale]

Moving the goalposts won’t get you very far on a skeptics board. Maybe you can go troll YouTube or something.

Skeptics board? Good one, not this section anyway.

What are the collusion charges? Isn't that supposed to be the focus of this investigation?

Or, are you implying talking to Russians is a crime?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptics board? Good one, not this section anyway.

What are the collusion charges? Isn't that supposed to be the focus of this investigation?

Or, are you implying talking to Russians is a crime?

And we are asked once again to provide evidence that is overwhelming something went on. How well Trump has insulated himself is yet to be determined. But this nonsense repeating Trump's mantra is not convincing anyone of anything except that Trump supporters prefer their willful ignorance.

That's only going to last until Mueller's report you know. Or maybe you don't.

 

[eerok]

Or, are you implying talking to Russians is a crime?

It most certainly can be. It depends on the details.

 

[Cain]

Indeed. The first thing I show anyone who expresses an interest in a legal career is the most recent first year salary distribution.

I actively discourage students who express an interest in becoming lawyers. "If it's your dream, then you should pursue your dream. But if you're doing it because you figure it'll be fun and most lawyers are rich, think again. If you can get into a top 14 program, go for it, but that profession is feast or famine."

 

[acbytesla]

Skeptics board? Good one, not this section anyway.

What are the collusion charges? Isn't that supposed to be the focus of this investigation?

Or, are you implying talking to Russians is a crime?

It's not. But, it is a crime to lie about such discussions to Congress and Federal investigators. It is also highly suspicious that they are lying if said discussions are of an innocent nature.

And members of the Trump campaign did more than talk to Russians, they met with Russians for the express purpose to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton. That alone is an act of conspiracy.

They shared polling data (more conspiracy) and requested Russian assistance in obtaining Clinton's emails (more conspiracy). Trump also throughout the campaign said that he had nothing to do with Russia all the while seeking Russian financing of Trump Tower Russia which included the highly illegal act of giving Putin a penthouse apartment.

Then you have maybe a thousand counts of Obstruction of Justice committed by the President in his attempts to shut down legitimate inquiries.

You were talking about skepticism?

Let me tell you what I'm skeptical about. Pretty much EVERYTHING that Trump and his administration say.

 

[phiwum]

Skeptics board? Good one, not this section anyway.

What are the collusion charges? Isn't that supposed to be the focus of this investigation?

Or, are you implying talking to Russians is a crime?

Why are you asking what the charges are? The results of the ongoing investigation are not yet public.

Wait and see. Maybe nothing comes from the Trump/Russia thing. Maybe something does. We'll see.

 

[Aridas]

Hmm. There's apparently been a little bit in the way of new developments about the unknown subpeonaed company owned by a foreign government. One of the most pointed consequences of the new information is...

Judge Beryl-Howell also issued a firm start date of January 15, 2019 for the $50,000 per day fine. So by now the company has either paid a fine or Mueller has collected property/assets from the company valued at over $2.2 million and rising while they wait for SCOTUS to decide on whether to take up the case.

The investigation is even more in the black.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Hmm. There's apparently been a little bit in the way of new developments about the unknown subpeonaed company owned by a foreign government. One of the most pointed consequences of the new information is...



The investigation is even more in the black.

Since the company is most likely state-owned by the Saudi or Quatari, they can keep this up for a few more years without a sweat.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's only going to last until Mueller's report you know. Or maybe you don't.

Renato Mariotti article on why we shouldn't overhype the Mueller report

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Roger Stone may have violated his gag order with the publication of a book he and his team didn't tell Judge Jackson about

 

[a_unique_person]

Renato Mariotti article on why we shouldn't overhype the Mueller report

I think that's similar to what I've been saying. Trump supporters will breathe a big sigh of relief that he's a stupid, greedy, racist, sexist, lying conman and fraud.

 

[3point14]

Or, are you implying talking to Russians is a crime?

Depends on the participants and the nature of the conversation.

Buying ice cream in Moscow - probably not a crime

Indulging in discussions damaging to the American people while running for president and making illegal commitments to be fulfilled once one is president - probably a crime.

I'm not in any way legally trained but this seems trivial. I'm sure someone will be along to correct me if I'm wrong, however.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

And we are asked once again to provide evidence that is overwhelming something went on. How well Trump has insulated himself is yet to be determined.

“Plausible Deniability” is a tactic that may be sought by those in power. Especially the weasels.

With Nixon, the question became, “What did he know, and when did he know it?”

With Trump’s top advisors writing memos to protect themselves, and at least Cohen surreptitiously taping conversations, and Trump’s own tweets and public pronouncements, that veil of “Plausible Deniability” may very well be pierced.

Or not. We’ll find out in due time. Personally, I suspect it will become untenable to hold that Trump was ignorant of all the criminal wrongdoing going on right below him.

 

[CapelDodger]

“Plausible Deniability” is a tactic that may be sought by those in power. Especially the weasels.

There is no plausible deniability of the New York Trump Tower meeting, which is why Drydale pretends ignorance of it. That meeting was expressly for the purpose of dirt on Clinton being conveyed to the Trump campaign as part of an official Russian government effort to assist said campaign. Drydale's passive-aggressive "is it now a crime to talk to Russians?" trope is just sad.


The meeting came out in June 2017 : since Drydale hasn't yet been told how to respond to it it's safe to say he's not going to be, so he and his ilk will continue to pretend ignorance of the New York Trump Tower meeting and the (uncontested) associated email-chain.


There's no need even to consider the fact that the meeting only came to light ayear later when Crooked Kushner had to made yet another addition to his "full disclosure" statement. He is so going to do time before this is all over.

 

[acbytesla]

Roger Stone may have violated his gag order with the publication of a book he and his team didn't tell Judge Jackson about

Stone will be soon joining his fellow sleazeball friend Paul Manafort in prison.

Manafort is to be sentenced this coming week in Virginia to between 19 and 25 years and the following week by another Federal Court for up to another 10 years. Manafort is 69 years old which means according to Federal guidelines he won't be free until he's a minimum of 89 years old and he could be in prison at 105. That is if he lives that long.

If anyone needs a pardon, it is Manafort. But of course, that might not save him as the State of New York has prepared additional charges just in case.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

“Plausible Deniability” is a tactic that may be sought by those in power. Especially the weasels.

With Nixon, the question became, “What did he know, and when did he know it?”

With Trump’s top advisors writing memos to protect themselves, and at least Cohen surreptitiously taping conversations, and Trump’s own tweets and public pronouncements, that veil of “Plausible Deniability” may very well be pierced.

Or not. We’ll find out in due time. Personally, I suspect it will become untenable to hold that Trump was ignorant of all the criminal wrongdoing going on right below him.

I'm not sure they worry that much about the "plausible" part. There's an audio recording out there of Trump discussing the hush money payments with Cohen. In the past couple of days both Trump and Giuliani have said that Trump knew nothing about them.

Truth is irrelevant. Evidence is irrelevant. Just deny. That's all that matters.

 

[carlitos]

you were asking about "improper contacts," remember?

It is evidence of improper contacts that were then lied about that were then covered up that investigations into have faced extraordinary attempts to interfere with and intimidate.

You know, the kind of thing you expect to happen when a casual, but honest, mistake happens, right?

This evidence is located in courtrooms of various federal and state jurisdictions and attested to by many of the people involved who are now serving time for their crimes or in the process of receiving judgment to that effect.
Are we really going to do the "no really, I just woke up from a coma and have no clue what's going on around here" routine?

That's allegations, not evidence. Unless you can point me somewhere that actually lists these improper contacts. .......

That's allegations, not evidence. Unless you can point me somewhere that actually lists these improper contacts.

If only someone would post a quick bullet-point list in this very thread, complete with links that detail such contacts.

The Empty Wheel has this concise summary of the quid pro quo between Trump Org and Moscow:

1. January 20, 2016, when Michael Cohen told Dmitry Peskov’s personal assistant that Trump would be willing to work with a GRU-tied broker and (soft and hard) sanctioned banks in pursuit of a $300 million Trump Tower deal in Russia.
2. June 9, 2016, when Don Jr, knowing that currying favor with Russia could mean $300 million to the family, took a meeting offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” At the end of the meeting, per the testimony of at least four attendees, Don Jr said they’d revisit Magnitsky sanctions if his dad won.
3. August 2, 2016, when Paul Manafort and Rick Gates had a clandestine meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik at which Trump’s campaign manager walked Kilimnik through highly detailed poll data and the two discussed a “peace” plan for Ukraine understood to amount to sanctions relief.
4. December 29, 2016, when (working on instructions relayed by KT McFarland, who was at Mar-a-Lago with Trump) Mike Flynn said something to Sergey Kislyak that led Putin not to respond to Obama’s election-related sanctions
5. January 11, 2017, when Erik Prince, acting as a back channel for Trump, met with sanctioned sovereign wealth fund Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev.

If only someone would post a quick bullet-point list in this very thread, complete with links that detail such contacts.

That's impressive all right.

Passive aggressive, complimenting me sarcastically, and then:

I assume all are doing hard time for talking with Russians?

Now your asking who is "doing hard time." If we tell you who's "doing hard time," you'll just move the goalposts again to something else, and on and on.

Skeptics board? Good one, not this section Drysdale's posts anyway.

What are the collusion charges? Isn't that supposed to be the focus of this investigation?

Or, are you implying talking to Russians is a crime?

You asked about improper contacts. You were given evidence of improper contacts. Now you are asking about "collusion charges" and whether people are in jail. This is a textbook example of moving the goalposts.

If you think that this section isn't up to par skeptic-wise, please do your part to make it so.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Passive aggressive, complimenting me sarcastically, and then:











[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/oWUuoMf.gif[/qimg]



Now your asking who is "doing hard time." If we tell you who's "doing hard time," you'll just move the goalposts again to something else, and on and on.











You asked about improper contacts. You were given evidence of improper contacts. Now you are asking about "collusion charges" and whether people are in jail. This is a textbook example of moving the goalposts.



If you think that this section isn't up to par skeptic-wise, please do your part to make it so.

The Energizer bunny of fringe reset...