Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drysdale said:
I'm gonna tell you something. There obviously is no collusion. His report, IF he writes one is going to be very disappointing for the media. The Dems will probably stomp and act upset but they don't really want impeachment proceedings. That would lead to disclosure.
And a whole bunch of bad stuff will be exposed. And isn't Trump who will be in trouble.
Click to expand...

Snort!
 
Drysdale said:
I'm gonna tell you something. There obviously is no collusion. His report, IF he writes one is going to be very disappointing for the media. The Dems will probably stomp and act upset but they don't really want impeachment proceedings. That would lead to disclosure.
And a whole bunch of bad stuff will be exposed. And isn't Trump who will be in trouble.
Click to expand...

If you actually believe this, would you like to tell us why?
 
Hush, all of you. I'm just glad that someone's had the fortitude to say what they think outright instead of dancing around implications so they can't be quoted later.

[ETA] Also,
Seth Abramson said:
Just want to reiterate that federal prosecutors are asking a judge to put Trump's Campaign Manager in prison for life
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Drysdale said:
I'm gonna tell you something. There obviously is no collusion. His report, IF he writes one is going to be very disappointing for the media. The Dems will probably stomp and act upset but they don't really want impeachment proceedings. That would lead to disclosure.

And a whole bunch of bad stuff will be exposed. And isn't Trump who will be in trouble.
Click to expand...



Announced by the Mueller investigation: They have hard evidence Stone was in communication with the companies that stole Hillary's and Democrats' data to give to Wikileaks.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Drysdale said:
I'm gonna tell you something. There obviously is no collusion. His report, IF he writes one is going to be very disappointing for the media. The Dems will probably stomp and act upset but they don't really want impeachment proceedings. That would lead to disclosure.
And a whole bunch of bad stuff will be exposed. And isn't Trump who will be in trouble.
Click to expand...
That suggests one of two things: Mueller doesn't really have anything or he won't put it in writing.

I don't see how you figure. Oh that's right, Trump keeps saying so. :sdl:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is just a weak attempt to pretend there is no evidence when it is overwhelming.

Open your eyes. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is just a weak attempt to pretend there is evidence when there is none.

Oh, and make sure you read the conversation closely, so you know what was actually under discussion. We weren’t talking about any criminal behavior.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Only Trump would think that using an amendment to the Constitution for exactly it's intended purpose was unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

If only it was only Trump. The far right has long since embraced crazy. This is simply yet another one of its manifestations. And... yes, a bunch of right-wingers in right wing media are calling that a coup. As well as, for example, TBD here.

Iamafalser said:
I mostly just lurk here for entertainment purposes but I can't figure something out:

On the one hand, Trump is an out of control idiot/crazy person who acts solely on impulse without thinking things through, right?

Yet at the same time he's also some sort of criminal mastermind who's been engaged in all sorts of criminal activity like money laundering or whatever for decades and being Putin's bitch without ever leaving a shred of legally incriminating evidence behind.

I'm sorry but these two scenarios simply do not seem at all congruous to me.
Click to expand...


Not quite, on either count. Trump is fundamentally a con man and, I dare to say, likely a pathological narcissist. Not an out of control idiot/crazy person who acts solely on impulse without thinking things through. We could go more in depth about his faults, but they don't actually equate to that. As for "criminal mastermind who has managed to not get caught," again, not quite. Criminal, yes. Mastermind, not really. "Not get caught," yes and no. Having access to a lot of money and having a lot of criminal friends, some of whom you have working for you specifically to protect you and do the dirtier work actually is a pretty effective way to get away with a lot of crap. There's a number of reasons why he has been involved in an absurd number of court cases about a lot of things, after all. There's also reasons why a number of his businesses have been fined large sums over and over and over for failing to comply with anti-money laundering rules but still don't find it to be worthwhile to actually follow those rules. That he knowingly did a fair bit of business with criminals since early on has been rather well known, for that matter, as well as that a lot of his associates, in general, have been criminals. He's even pretty well admitted such at multiple points. As for no evidence... at last check, Trump is officially an unindicted co-conspirator currently, and that's despite Republicans in Congress engaging in some somewhat amazing shenanigans as they've pointedly tried to protect Trump from any meaningful investigation into numerous huge red flags that they would be screaming their heads off about if Obama or his Administration did those things. Notably more could be said, but... your scenarios need some quite notable changes to be accurate reflections of what's actually being put forth meaningfully.

Orphia Nay said:
Announced by the Mueller investigation: They have hard evidence Stone was in communication with the companies that stole Hillary's and Democrats' data to give to Wikileaks.
Click to expand...

Beat me to that. Here's a link to cnn's story on it.
 
Last edited:
Drysdale said:
I'm gonna tell you something. There obviously is no collusion. His report, IF he writes one is going to be very disappointing for the media. The Dems will probably stomp and act upset but they don't really want impeachment proceedings. That would lead to disclosure.
And a whole bunch of bad stuff will be exposed. And isn't Trump who will be in trouble.
Click to expand...

if that was true, why does Trump fight tooth and nail to discredit the investigation?
Why doesn't he have an interview with Mueller?
 
Matthew Best said:
Paul Manafort should be jailed for 19-24 years - Mueller

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47263226

"On Friday, a court document filed by Mr Mueller's office said it agreed with a US Department of Justice calculation that Manafort should face between 19 and 24 years in prison and a fine of between $50,000 (£39,000) and $24m."
Click to expand...

Now, Manafort has no more use for Trump, since even a Pardon wouldn't stop state investigators from unraveling everything Mueller found out about him.
 
Segnosaur said:
I do wonder in the value of interviewing someone like her, whether Mueller expects to get any valuable information on her, or whether she was interviewed as a way to send a message to Trump.
Click to expand...

Seems to me she'd be valuable as an interviewee regardless of whether or not she has any involvement in anything nefarious. If Mueller asks, say, Ivanka Trump "what happened WRT x on date y?" and she says one thing and another person says another, then that's one situation. If he asks the same question and Ivanka says one thing and 20 other people independently say another, then that's a whole different situation.
 
Is Manafort's conviction proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? No. But it is an indicator, given that it's a man who risked life imprisonment to cover up one channel of communication between the Trump campaign and Russia and that's something that the judge - who has seen lots of evidence that is not yet public - says is "at the undisputed core of" the investigation.

Similarly, there's no proof that Trump has laundered money for Russia. But looking at what is known of his financial history turns up evidence for which the best explanation is that he was laundering money for Russia.

These things are not smocking guns. But all the evidence there is is inculpatory, and none of it is exculpatory. To me the balance of probability points quite firmly in one direction.
 
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1096542036352790529

Breaking: Prosecutors say for the first time they have evidence of Roger Stone communicating with Wikileaks, according to a new court filing from special counsel prosecutors.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1096521856222486528

This is the filing I've been waiting for today. The SCO says evidence in Roger Stone's case was found in accounts that were searched for the GRU case, in which 11 Russian military officers were charged with a conspiracy to interfere in the election. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5740797/2-15-19-US-Stone-Related-Case.pdf …
Click to expand...

Document embedded in tweet.
 
Drysdale said:
I'm gonna tell you something. There obviously is no collusion. His report, IF he writes one is going to be very disappointing for the media. The Dems will probably stomp and act upset but they don't really want impeachment proceedings. That would lead to disclosure.
And a whole bunch of bad stuff will be exposed. And isn't Trump who will be in trouble.
Click to expand...

Trump is doing the finest impersonation of a guilty man I've ever seen. I've never witnessed an innocent person doing so many things that scream "I'm guilty" as Trump. An innocent person would welcome an investigation knowing he has nothing to hide. An innocent person would want the integrity of the investigation to be above reproach so that, when found faultless, it cannot be questioned by critics. Instead, we have Trump who has attacked the investigation and those who involved in it from day one as a "witch hunt". No, he's scared ****less of what they are finding. It may not be direct conspiracy with Russia by Trump, but he is scared to death of what they will find or have found. Only those suffering from severe HISS (Head in Sand Syndrome) cannot, or more accurately, refuse to see it.
 
Drysdale said:
I'm gonna tell you something. There obviously is no collusion. His report, IF he writes one is going to be very disappointing for the media. The Dems will probably stomp and act upset but they don't really want impeachment proceedings. That would lead to disclosure.
And a whole bunch of bad stuff will be exposed. And isn't Trump who will be in trouble.
Click to expand...
Day is night, up is down, his entire senior staff didn't meet with Russian actors to get dirt on Hillary, if you watch enough TV courtroom dramas they issue you a law degree, and the fact-free bubble from where you post has a lovely sheen.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom