Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 6:23 am

Re Manafort, it's breathtaking how many laws he flouted. I've got to believe that a guy operating at that level had law firms and accounting firms and other serious people advising him. It would just seem he ignored any serious advice offered by very serious people. What was he thinking?

I don't know whether he is flippable. He's going to do time in federal prison no matter what, but it won't be draconian once he adjusts. It will be prison with 3 square meals, mandatory free time, exercise, etc. I wouldn't expect him to be in a scary place since he is a non-violent criminal and not an escape risk..

To flip Manafort, he would have to believe that any deal is better than the possibility of a Trump (or Pence) pardon. What exactly will the Feds offer Manafort? 30 years instead of 50 years?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 6:58 am

Freeman, I'm under the impression that you typically try to flip someone before you indict them. So, indicting Manafort suggests that he wasn't willing to be flipped. Is that not your understanding?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 7:04 am

Ray Jay wrote:Freeman, I'm under the impression that you typically try to flip someone before you indict them. So, indicting Manafort suggests that he wasn't willing to be flipped. Is that not your understanding?

I would think if they wanted to flip him, they would try before and after. Maybe he was thinking they were bluffing beforehand.

And maybe it is not about flipping Manafort or even Gates, but possibly someone else who they are yet to indict, "See, Mr X, we are not kidding, we got Manafort and he didn't help us so he's looking at a couple of decades. Now, what do you want to do?"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 8:59 am

freeman3 wrote:So to recap:

(1) Another indication that the Trump campaign was absolutely willing to collude with the Russians and had no qualms about doing so;


I'm skipping over the lesser untruths and getting to this, which is a flat-out lie.

Prove it.

Or, retract it.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 Oct 2017, 9:40 am

They went to a meeting with people with Russians they knew were essentially acting as representatives of the Russian government to get dirt on Hillary. That's willingness to collude.

That's so friggin' obvious and you have the audacity to call things I say are lies. Do not say things I write are lies unless you have support for your allegations.

I'm trying not to say anything else. Typical boorish comservative behavior (I'll excuse Brad because he's a great guy) when they can't answer arguments.

Sorry...if we were in the same room we would be swinging right now. I'm not kidding.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 31 Oct 2017, 9:50 am

Thank you for the compliment.

Personally, I think both Manafort and Podesta are guilty, and the Clinton foundation is complicit, and the issue won't go much further due to the concern both parties would have about being besmirched.

Cynical, I know.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 10:06 am

freeman3 wrote:They went to a meeting with people with Russians they knew were essentially acting as representatives of the Russian government to get dirt on Hillary. That's willingness to collude.


You're conflating. Nowhere have you mentioned Donald Jr, yet that's whom you seem to be talking about. He never met with a "representative of the Russian government." Who did?

That's so friggin' obvious and you have the audacity to call things I say are lies. Do not say things I write are lies unless you have support for your allegations.


Sorry, but when you're lying, you're lying. What is collusion? When does one violate the "collusion" law?

Who has colluded? To do what? What's your evidence?

I'm trying not to say anything else. Typical boorish comservative behavior (I'll excuse Brad because he's a great guy) when they can't answer arguments.

Sorry...if we were in the same room we would be swinging right now. I'm not kidding.


That's sad. It wouldn't last long.

You're a decent fellow who has let his emotions run far ahead of the facts.

I know you are a lawyer, so make the case.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 Oct 2017, 10:12 am

I'll make sure to kick your ass the next time we meet. You dont get to call me a liar when I'm clearly not lying. The other "arguments" I'll deal with later.
Last edited by freeman3 on 31 Oct 2017, 10:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 10:13 am

Worth a read. It's a bucket of cold water on the heads of the conspiracy-theorists.

Papadopoulos? Whodat??? Herewith a few notes.

Whoever he is, he’s not very smart. There is no law requiring one to talk to the FBI. There is no law requiring one to answer questions posed by the FBI. There is a law, however, criminalizing false information given to the FBI. In the Statement of Offense unsealed yesterday, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to the violation of that law in an interview with the FBI on January 27, 2017.

Whoever he is, he was a bit player in the Trump campaign. He served as an unpaid foreign policy adviser who attended one meeting with Trump. All of 30 years old, he shows that the Trump campaign lacked a deep bench in foreign policy expertise or in vetting those whose association might embarrass the Trump campaign.

Papadopoulos was arrested on July 27, 2017. The plea document was dated October 5 and filed under seal. The plea document makes it apparent that he is cooperating with the FBI. His arrest was kept secret, however, so that he could cooperate “prospectively.” Secret cooperation is likely to have included the recording of conversations with others who didn’t know what he was up to. Allahpundit pulls the threads together here at Hot Air.

When Paul Mirengoff read news of Papadopoulos’s plea yesterday, he knew “whodat.” Paul’s analysis of the plea is posted here.

The first nine pages of the Statement of Offense (I’ll refer to it as “the plea document”) are critical. They lay out the facts to which Papadopoulo has agreed. The narrative appears to be based in large part on emails provided to the FBI by the Trump campaign.

The plea document’s paragraph 21 in particular requires a close look. According to paragraph 21, from mid-June through mid-August 2016 Papadopooulos pursued an “off the record” meeting of a Trump campaign representative with Vladimir Putin or the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The plea document names no one but Papadopoulos. Everyone else is identified only in his or her professional capacity. Papadopoulos sought to arrange a meeting with the Russian through “the professor” based in London (where Papadopoulos was living) and through a Female Russian National (not even given a professional capacity). The references to “the Professor” put me in mind of Irwin Corey. The Female Russian National is the femme fatale. A film noir or dark comedy is struggling to emerge from the plea document.

Papadopoulos was on the make; he nominated himself to attend the meeting on behalf of the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos communicated by email with an unidentified Trump campaign official identified only as “the Campaign Supervisor.” The Campaign Supervisor complimented Papadopoulos on his efforts and encouraged Papadopoulos and another (unnamed) foreign policy adviser to “make the trip[], if it is feasible.”

Papadopoulos’s email communications with the Trump campaign also rope in two (inconsistently capitalized) High-Ranking Campaign Officials. A footnote to paragraph 19 states that the one of the high-ranking officials communicates with yet another campaign official: “We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.” Paragraph 21(c) states without further explanation that the proposed trip “did not take place.”

What happened? Papadopoulos failed in his efforts to make himself a big shot courtesy of the Trump campaign. To borrow a line from Cool Hand Luke: “What we have here is failure to communicate.” Or to collude. Now Papadopoulos is a tool of Team Mueller and their own big plans.


There were a variety of sycophants and losers in the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos was one of the latter--looking to make a name for himself.

Cool-hand George can only take Mueller as far as his knowledge and connections go. At this point, we have no reason to think that's very far.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 10:15 am

freeman3 wrote:I'll make sure to kick your ass the next time we meet. The other "arguments" I'll deal with later.


Hmm. I'll presume you mean over the game board, otherwise I think there are laws about threats over electronic means.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 10:22 am

I'd post from the WaPo, but I've used my free time there this month, so I'll cite PL again. This is from Marc Thiessen, hardly a Trump fan:

Here’s the bottom line: We have congressional testimony, under oath, that Clinton hired the same firm to smear Trump that Putin reportedly used to smear Magnitsky. Moreover, we also know that the Fusion GPS dossier relied on senior Russian government officials for much of the dirt it compiled, including “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” and a “former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” Together, those are bombshell revelations.

Yet today, there is barely a peep in the mainstream media about the Clinton-Fusion-Putin connection. Imagine the outrage that would have ensued if we had learned that Trump had hired an opposition research firm with Putin-linked clients to dig up dirt on Clinton and that senior Russian government officials had been the sources of the unsubstantiated allegations that were leaked to the media. The left would be screaming, “Smoking gun!”

None of this absolves the Trump campaign of collusion charges. But there is now more public evidence about Clinton’s collusion with Russia than there is about any such collusion by Trump.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 Oct 2017, 11:03 am

As for the evidence of willingness to collude, Donald, Jr was told that the Crown Prosecutor met with Emin's father and offered incriminating information on Hillary as part of Russia's effort to help Trump. He was the told he would be meeting with a "Russian government attorney."

So...Donald, Jr is told that he will be meeting with a "Russian government attorney" who will bring incriminating information on Hillary as part of Russia's effort to help Trump. That to me indicates willingness to collude. And collude here simply means willingness to work with the Russian government against US interests. So what would be the crime?

As for collusion being a crime, if they had accepted dirt on Hillary it would be espionage.

https://www.google.com/amp/foreignpolic ... e-act/amp/

And violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

https://www.google.com/amp/foreignpolic ... e-act/amp/

And violation of campaign laws

https://www.justsecurity.org/41593/hidi ... sia-trump/

And all I said they were willing to collude. I did not allege that they committed any crimes. You may have a difference of opinion. You're wrong but that's fine. Calling something a lie is trying to be a bully and intimidate. And it's not something I am willing to put up with.

As for Papadopoulus...he meets with the professor I'm late April who says Russia has emails on Hillary. And he is trying to arrange a meeting with the Trump campaign and Russian officials. And a little over a month it happens. You are not seeing the connection here?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 Oct 2017, 11:07 am

I'm kidding about kicking your ass--I was just reacting to your assertion that the fight would be over quick. Anyway, we can have strenuous disagreements but saying someone is putting out lies is over the line unless you have really got proof. And I don't think you had that here. Not even close.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 Oct 2017, 11:40 am

So Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS...which was the same firm that dug up dirt on Magitsky. But wasn't that firm hired to do the dossier before Clinton came aboard by a Republican web site? And they hired Steele to do the dossier. Is Steele Russian connected too? And Steele relied on Russian officials for some of the dossier so he was being manipulated by the Russians...so that Trump will lose?And the Clinton campaign should be responsible for Steele relying on Russian government officials who allegedly manipulated him? But how would they know what Steele would rely on Russian officials? Did they ever use the dirt?

Doesn't make for a very coherent narrative...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 11:50 am

freeman3 wrote:As for the evidence of willingness to collude, Donald, Jr was told that the Crown Prosecutor met with Emin's father and offered incriminating information on Hillary as part of Russia's effort to help Trump. He was the told he would be meeting with a "Russian government attorney."


And yet, NONE of that was in your opening post that I responded to--nor was it in the indictment. How do I know that? Because Donald Jr. is not mentioned in the indictment.

Here's what you started with:

Instead of reading conservative spin..you might want to want to look at the indictment


Then, you went off the rails and went into speculation. Donald Jr. is not in the indictment. So, you lied. You may not like it, but what I'm saying is factual. If you don't want me to say something is a lie, tell the truth. It's simple. I didn't say you were a liar, which would be an assault on your character. You did, however, lie.

You say:

(1) Another indication that the Trump campaign was absolutely willing to collude with the Russians and had no qualms about doing so;


And yet, Papadopoulos repeatedly tried to get the campaign interested in meeting with Russians and was rebuffed. That would seem to be "qualms."

He was nobody, with no particular expertise. This was a campaign staff run on a shoestring budget. He had connections in Greece and volunteered. There is no evidence he was significant or influential.

So...Donald, Jr is told that he will be meeting with a "Russian government attorney" who will bring incriminating information on Hillary as part of Russia's effort to help Trump. That to me indicates willingness to collude. And collude here simply means willingness to work with the Russian government against US interests. So what would be the crime?


What's the relevance of this to Papadopoulos? Did he arrange the meeting with the Russian attorney? Did she represent the Russian government? Did she collude with Don Jr. to fix the election? How?

Was she a "Russian government attorney?" She says she wasn't.

Natalia Veselnitskaya denied any connection to the Russian government in an interview with NBC News. Raising even more questions, she also denied having any damaging information about 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.


What evidence do you have that she was who you claim she was?

As for collusion being a crime, if they had accepted dirt on Hillary it would be espionage.


Did they?

And, did she pay for dirt on Trump re "the dossier?" If so, wouldn't that be espionage?

We know the Clinton Campaign and DNC paid Fusion GPS, who hired a Brit who paid the Russians . . . so, the Campaign and DNC were, by your reasoning, engaged in espionage.

And, they failed to disclose the money they spent on it, which is a violation of campaign finance laws. They filed it as "legal" costs. LOL!

And all I said they were willing to collude. I did not allege that they committed any crimes. You may have a difference of opinion. You're wrong but that's fine. Calling something a lie is trying to be a bully and intimidate. And it's not something I am willing to put up with.


No, it's not bullying and it's not intimidation. It's true. That is a defense.

As for Papadopoulus...he meets with the professor I'm late April who says Russia has emails on Hillary. And he is trying to arrange a meeting with the Trump campaign and Russian officials. And a little over a month it happens. You are not seeing the connection here?


You're acting as if there is evidence that Papadopoulos had any kind of sway with the campaign. I see ONE picture posted all over the internet as if it was determinative.

Since the election, Democrats have been unhinged and determined to impeach Trump. If they had nominated someone less criminal, they might not have had to worry about it.

Now, more speculation:

So we have the inferential chain:

(1) Trump campaign willing to collude with the Russians to win election
(2) The Russians had emails to trade as part of collusion;
(3)
(4) The extreme willingness to make sure Russia did not get mad over sanctions is circumstantial evidence of a payback
(5)Trump's attempts to shut down investigation is consciousness of guilt and circumstantial evidence of guilt.

So you have evidence before the crime and after the crime that indicate a crime did occur. Now we just need evidence of the actual crime (number three)


1. There is a chasm between "looking for dirt" and "collusion."
2. Why didn't we get all the emails released?
4. Please. This is your inference. Trump has not been "nice" to Russia since he's been in office.
5. More speculation.

So, your #3 is based on a premise of speculation and a conclusion of speculation.

Good luck selling a judge on that.