Comparing Giuliani to Avenetti.....both have been on TV a lot lately. That is about where it ends. Rudy has had a pretty successful career in public service and a legal career. Avenetti is one of the guys that people point to when they mock lawyers.
Manafort's formal motion to dismiss
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
Manafort’s ex son-in-law cooperating with authorities as a result of a guilty plea deal.
Manafort in deep ****.
Manafort in deep ****.
Manafort has been investigated for quite some time and was never charged until he could be used as leverage against Trump. He may be in deep **** but it is not given.
Again, this all presumes Manafort has dirt on Trump, which he may or very well may not have.
It doesn't presume Manafort has dirt on trump. Re-read the post.
Manafort in deep ****.
No, I mean, who gives a **** if Manafort is in deep ****? Unless he has something on Trump or it’s related to the campaign in someway, it’s no different than any other white collar crime. In order for this to even be relevant there needs to be something Trump related and as we’ve pointed out, this indictment is for **** unrelated.
I honestly don’t care.
I do, obviously. I love it when people who attempted to secretly commit Conspiracy Against the Untied States are caught and millions of dollars of tax evasion are discovered and potentially recouped.
I think one other possible outcome of this may be if we end up investigating whether officials in our own Government's deparment of Justice actively participated in a conspiracy to undermine or remove a duly elected President?
The evidence we're seeing so far certainly indicates that....why is no one interested in why the DOJ was spying on a Presidential campaign? To me that's the WTF of this whole collusion story. The Russian crap is totally bogus and unimportant since what ever they were up to trying to influence our election didn't work. No votes were changed by anything they tried. Even Obama said that!
What were our folks up to? That's the "collusion" we all really need to find out about.
This is a blatent lie because if you cared if people conspired against the US you would not be a democrat supporter
He doeant care that his political party conspired against his own candidate but he claims he cares about Manafort. He only cares about what is bad for Trump in simpleton world.
Now Dave, why would you even ask that question when you as well as the rest of the voting members of this board know that poster doesn't even realize what race he is?
I agree....so why was Trump making a big deal about the judge rebuffing the government's case?
Because it gives credence to arguments for the boundaries of the investigation.
Until the judge allows it to go forward? I've never understood he and his worshippers jumping on that. A judge asked questions of the government. Happens everyday. Unless the strategy is to yell about anything and everything in an effort to confuse or overwhelm. Hell we have a thread now with people cheering on a Russian troll farm. Mueller = enemy. Investigation = enemy. FBI, DOJ, ODNI = enemy. Russian troll farm = ally. Shady crook = ally. Are they really that afraid that this investigation ends with Trump out of office?
I already said I think the judge allows it.
I’ll plau your game though.
Comey lied and leaked - fired
McCabe - fired
Yates - fired
Page - fired
Strzok- fired
Ohr - demoted x 2
Dossier - unverified and paid for by HRC
GOP campaign - spied on
GOP campaign staffers bugged
FISC Abuse - investigation underway
Yep, it’s all on the up and up.
Comey wasn't fired for lying or leaking (nor has any of that been proven). Strzok hasn't been fired. Page wasn't fired. There was and would be an investigation without the dossier (per Gowdy). GOP campaign was not spied on. GOP staffers were not bugged.
Man...that's a lot of errors in 1 post. I never thought of you as a Trump worshipper.
It's clear that the conclusion you came to while posting this was heavily influenced by your many years of watching television shows. Get off the couch coop. It rots your brain.
Honestly, I think coop is open to these things possibly might be true....but that no evidence has proven them true as of yet
So they did or didn’t have an informant in the campaign? Was the NYT ********?
What do you mean it hasn’t been proven wrt Comey? He’s admitted it openly.
They did or did not Carter Page under surveillance?
Didn’t say there wouldn’t be an investigation without the Dossier. Just said the bulk of their evidence was based on political dirt that was unverified.
Strozk and Page haven’t been fired. You’re correct. My bad. They do have 5 months of missing text messages though...
An informant is not a spying. They were investigating. Guess what, they were investigating Clinton too (a wee bit more publicly)
Comey was not fired for leaking or lying. Guess we will see what the IG says.
Carter Page was under surveillance after he left the Trump campaign (not as a "GOP staffer")
Missing texts were found months ago.
And, back to your original post, Yates was fired (justly) because she refused to uphold Trump's travel ban. Had nothing to do with any DEEPSTATE conspiracy.
To the DEEPSTATE nonsense? I'm open to anything, but I find that laughable, at present time. That errors were made over the course of the Clinton investigation? I'm open to it and suspect it.
You keep projecting **** that I didn’t say.
I didn’t claim Comey was fired for lying and leaking. I said he lied and leaked and that he was fired. Yates, I merely stated was fired. Didn’t state the motivations.
My point of the post was that of the upper echelons of leadership have had a lot of problems that would easily lead to opening them up to questions about their legitimacy and motivations. It’s not some Trumper delusion as you tried to imply.
Grassley's not a happy bunny with Rod. Thread below that post.
That sounds fairly familiar. Someone has said it doesn't sound like they are complying with US code with the SC actions. Who was that fairly smart dude?
Grassley found out Rod gave Mueller FISA approval authority. Uht-oh.
That sounds fairly familiar. Someone has said it doesn't sound like they are complying with US code with the SC actions. Who was that fairly smart dude?
Grassley found out Rod gave Mueller FISA approval authority. Uht-oh.
Manafort's defense never even called any witnesses. LOL.
Closing arguments tomorrow.
I like the gif, very appropriate!
Closing arguments tomorrow.
I like the gif, very appropriate!
Ok, but other than that, what’s to complain about, other than the “best people” he appointed to his cabinet and staff?
Im not sure that says a lot for the prosecutions case if the defense calls no witnesses.Manafort's defense never even called any witnesses. LOL.
Closing arguments tomorrow.
I like the gif, very appropriate!
matter of one's perspective. some lawyers never put a criminal defendant on the stand and routinely argue (no matter the evidence) that prosecution didn't prove case beyond a reasonable doubt. some defendants insist on testifying to "clear their name." (normally, a stupid decision). some lawyers don't put their criminal defendant client on the stand because they know he will be destroyed on cross-exam.
in short, without knowing the thought process of the defense lawyer, and without hearing the entirety of the evidence presented by the prosecution (not sound bites or summaries written by journalists, but the entirety of every bit of testimony and documents), one cannot evaluate either the prosecution's case or the wisdom of the defense in not presenting any testimony. How to make those judgments? That's what the jury does.
Well they didnt recall any witnesses or put on a defense so. Like I said. I am not sure if that says a lit about the prisecutors case. I always figured this case would be tried based on the evidence presented more than witnesses.
Sounds like a slam dunk win for Team Trump then. lol
Or it could be that no defense witnesses is common in bank and tax fraud cases and that says nothing about how the verdict will go.