31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sh76Perhaps you missed my statement (backed up by the plea deal):
=== they are linked ===
How are they linked? Mueller may know of a link, but I see nothing in the released information that links them.
Papadopoulos was directly reporting to Manafort as regards the information he subsequently lied about to the FBI.
You don't consider that a "link"?
Originally posted by @no1marauderI know Papadopoulos and Manafort are linked professionally.
Perhaps you missed my statement (backed up by the plea deal):
Papadopoulos was directly reporting to Manafort as regards the information he subsequently lied about to the FBI.
You don't consider that a "link"?
I meant a link between Papadopoulos and the indictment of Manafort and Gates.
Originally posted by @no1marauder=== Thinking that this is likely to end at Papadopolous just because Mueller's first round of indictments didn't go farther shows a severe lack of imagination esp. from someone who worked in a prosecutor's office. ===
It shows that Papadopoulos was willing to lie to the FBI about the details of those contacts with the Russians.
Why would he do so IF they weren't far more significant than Trump and others are admitting?
Again your looking at the tree of the Manafort indictment and missing the forest of the fact that Papadopolous lied about information that he pr ...[text shortened]... arther shows a severe lack of imagination esp. from someone who worked in a prosecutor's office.
I never said I thought it would end here. I said only that the indictment of Manafort had nothing to do with Trump, which, of course, it doesn't (unless, as I said, it can be used as leverage to get Manafort to flip).
At the US Attorneys' office, we would never have said or implied that an indictment on one crime has an impact on an unrelated set of facts just because the people involved moved in the same circles. Media members who say that the indictment of Manafort indicates some sort of collusion with Russia on the part of the Trump administration are being irresponsible.
That such collusion may be proven later doesn't change that.
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sh76Manafort's higher up on the food chain, was given information from a lower official that that official found necessary to lie about to the FBI.
I know Papadopoulos and Manafort are linked professionally.
I meant a link between Papadopoulos and the indictment of Manafort and Gates.
Manafort gets indicted the same day that the plea agreement of the lower official gets made public and that plea agreement reveals that the lower official has been cooperating with the investigation since July.
You still don't see any "link"?
Stop spouting Fox News spin; any criminal lawyer can see what Mueller is doing. He's leveraging Manafort and Gates and sending a message to everyone with involvement with the Russian collusion; start talking truthfully or face prison time.
Donald has shown very little loyalty to anyone not named Trump and it's unlikely that everyone involved is going to fall on their sword for him. If there's fire, someone is going to talk. I'd say he is in real jeopardy.
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sh76Again, you keep ignoring the forest by staring at a tree. No matter what anyone at a US Attorney's office would have said for public consumption, this type of tactic is routinely engaged in and we both know it.
=== Thinking that this is likely to end at Papadopolous just because Mueller's first round of indictments didn't go farther shows a severe lack of imagination esp. from someone who worked in a prosecutor's office. ===
I never said I thought it would end here. I said only that the indictment of Manafort had nothing to do with Trump, which, of course, it does ...[text shortened]... tration are being irresponsible.
That such collusion may be proven later doesn't change that.
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sh76It's admirable that your disciplined view of evidence will not allow you to jump to any conclusions unless a specific layer of onion incontrovertibly reveals it so, but I suspect most people would have been sceptical to say the least that there was no connection between Trump and Russian money after that exchange back in July between Norah O'Donnell and Paul Manafort, when she asked him, "So just to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs?”
.....Media members who say that the indictment of Manafort indicates some sort of collusion with Russia on the part of the Trump administration are being irresponsible.
That such collusion may be proven later doesn't change that.
“That’s what he said,” Manafort replied. “That’s obviously what the — our position is.”
It looks much better in text, but when your see the vision of Manafort a trained PR person stumble and stutter around this question and still conclude, nothing to see....What does it take??!???
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kmax87The thing is, even if collusion was proven, if the 25th were invoked, it would take a lot of people pulling against him, including a 2/3 majority in house AND senate and his own cabinet turning on him and in the case of a tie, Pence pulls the decider.
It's admirable that your disciplined view of evidence will not allow you to jump to any conclusions unless a specific layer of onion incontrovertibly reveals it so, but I suspect most people would have been sceptical to say the least that there was no connection between Trump and Russian money after that exchange back in July between Norah O'Donnell and Paul ...[text shortened]... e and stutter around this question and still conclude, nothing to see....What does it take??!???
Just don't see that happen unless someone comes up with an undisputed video of T and P shaking hands and saying it's a done deal, we have dope on Hillary.
I don't know if even THAT would do the trick.
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kmax87So to be clear, your view of circumstantial smoke fires are?
.....It looks much better in text, but when your see the vision of Manafort a trained PR person stumble and stutter around this question and still conclude, nothing to see....What does it take??!???
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseI think at some point American Patriotism will kick in, and all the good people who have been holding their nose of late, will like Flake and Corker say enough already and kick the scuzzball to the curb.
The thing is, even if collusion was proven, if the 25th were invoked, it would take a lot of people pulling against him, including a 2/3 majority in house AND senate and his own cabinet turning on him and in the case of a tie, Pence pulls the decider.
Just don't see that happen unless someone comes up with an undisputed video of T and P shaking hands a ...[text shortened]... ying it's a done deal, we have dope on Hillary.
I don't know if even THAT would do the trick.
31 Oct 17
[i]Originally tcutor's office. ===There's this interesting speculation by Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern:
I never said I thought it would end here. I said only that the indictment of Manafort had nothing to do with Trump, which, of course, it doesn't (unless, as I said, it can be used as leverage to get Manafort to flip).
At the US Attorneys' office, we would never have said or implied that an indictment on one crime has an impact on an unrelated set of facts j ...[text shortened]... tration are being irresponsible.
That such collusion may be proven later doesn't change that.[/b]
The charges against Manafort and Gates, for instance, mirror what many financial experts have long claimed about the Trump Organization: that they have been at pains to hide money from the IRS, including money from foreign sources; that they have engaged in conspiracies to launder foreign money; that they have made false statements and conspired to hide foreign funds. This is an indictment that should terrify Trump in that it shadows and hints at his own unlawful conduct and nabs two players who might be willing to cooperate to get out of their mess. And Trump can’t claim any of it is a direct attack on him.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/donald_trump_should_be_scared.html
There is ample evidence that Mueller is obtaining Trump's financial records; so eventual charges against Trump associates, his companies or Trump himself for the same types of crimes that Manafort and Gates got indicted for remains a possibility: https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-mueller-enlists-the-irs-for-his-trump-russia-investigation
01 Nov 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @sh76Looking just at the letter of the Manafort and Gates indictment is missing the forest by staring at a tree.
As for the coincidence, obviously, I think Mueller is trying to build a case against Trump. But Manafort will only help with that if he spills information unrelated to his indictment.
Nothing in the Manafort indictment impugns the Trump campaign.
Even the Papadopoulos plea only shows that Trump campaign officials had contact with Russians about getting info damaging to HRC, which we already knew from Eric's emails and the Jared meeting in any case.
Is it a pretty tree? 🙂
01 Nov 17
Originally posted by @mchillWhat a wonderful original analysis you got there! Nobody else on this thread thought of that metaphor.
Looking just at the letter of the Manafort and Gates indictment is missing the forest by staring at a tree.
Is it a pretty tree? 🙂
Originally posted by @sonhouseIf his approval rating falls into the 20's and the Republicans get killed in the midterms, then I think he'll be impeached.
The thing is, even if collusion was proven, if the 25th were invoked, it would take a lot of people pulling against him, including a 2/3 majority in house AND senate and his own cabinet turning on him and in the case of a tie, Pence pulls the decider.
Just don't see that happen unless someone comes up with an undisputed video of T and P shaking hands a ...[text shortened]... ying it's a done deal, we have dope on Hillary.
I don't know if even THAT would do the trick.
If there's a political will, they'll find the grounds.
02 Nov 17
Originally posted by @sh76At what level of political expediency does the dyed in the wool GOP supporter simply lose heart at the failure of their leaders to stand for something.
If his approval rating falls into the 20's and the Republicans get killed in the midterms, then I think he'll be impeached.
If there's a political will, they'll find the grounds.
Having roundly criticized the Dems for being an amoral pack of fork toothed snake oil salesmen, at what level of failure to live up to the expectation of a newly drained swamp do hard core conservative Republicans start turning their back on the Grand Old Party?
02 Nov 17
Originally posted by @kmax87While my crystal ball is in the shop, if I had to draw that line, I'd draw it at 30% approval rating and/or losing the House of Representatives in 2018.
At what level of political expediency does the dyed in the wool GOP supporter simply lose heart at the failure of their leaders to stand for something.
Having roundly criticized the Dems for being an amoral pack of fork toothed snake oil salesmen, at what level of failure to live up to the expectation of a newly drained swamp do hard core conservative Republicans start turning their back on the Grand Old Party?