18 charges. Michael Cohen pled guilty.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
WastelandCowboy 08/21/18 6:25:32 PM #1:	https://www.npr.org/2018/08/21/640537446/paul-manafort-jury-asks-for-instructions-about-consensus-on-1-charge Updated at 6:01 p.m. ET A federal jury on Tuesday found Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, guilty on eight of the 18 charges he faced in his tax and bank fraud trial. The verdict delivered a painful fall from grace for a top political operative who has advised presidents from Gerald Ford to Donald Trump and a shot in the arm to an investigation derided by Trump as a "witch hunt." Judge T.S. Ellis III declared a mistrial on the other 10 counts. The Justice Department has a choice about whether to attempt to retry Manafort on those counts. Prosecutors have until Aug. 29 to notify the judge as to what they've decided. The Manafort trial marked the first public court test of the work by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed nearly 15 months ago to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and any American conspirators. As is their practice, government lawyers made no comment after the verdict. Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing told reporters outside the courthouse that Manafort is evaluating his options. "Mr. Manafort is disappointed at not getting acquittals all the way through or a complete hung jury on all counts," Downing said. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/21/640544009/donald-trumps-longtime-attorney-michael-cohen-reaches-plea-deal-with-feds Updated at 6:16 p.m. ET Michael Cohen, President Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer, has pleaded guilty to eight counts in federal court in New York, federal prosecutors announced Tuesday evening. They include five counts of tax evasion, one count of falsifying submissions to a bank and two counts involving unlawful campaign contributions. Cohen's conduct "reflects a pattern of lies and dishonesty over a significant period of time," said Robert Khuzami, deputy U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan. The counts related to campaign finance violations involved payments that were made to keep two women quiet during the campaign, Khuzami said, noting that Cohen was "repaid at the direction of the candidate." Khuzami noted that Cohen was repaid by the campaign with invoices for "services rendered." Those "invoices were a sham," Khuzami said. They were "merely reimbursement for illegal campaign contributions." Cohen said in court that he made the excessive contributions in the summer of 2016, and in October of 2016 at the direction of a federal candidate. While Cohen did not name President Trump, it's clear that is who he is referring to given the timeline and circumstances. <cite>WastelandCowboy posted [p:907304488] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>https://www.npr.org/2018/08/21/640537446/paul-manafort-jury-asks-for-instructions-about-consensus-on-1-charge <quote>Updated at 6:01 p.m. ET A federal jury on Tuesday found Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, guilty on eight of the 18 charges he faced in his tax and bank fraud trial. The verdict delivered a painful fall from grace for a top political operative who has advised presidents from Gerald Ford to Donald Trump and a shot in the arm to an investigation derided by Trump as a "witch hunt." Judge T.S. Ellis III declared a mistrial on the other 10 counts. The Justice Department has a choice about whether to attempt to retry Manafort on those counts. Prosecutors have until Aug. 29 to notify the judge as to what they've decided. The Manafort trial marked the first public court test of the work by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed nearly 15 months ago to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and any American conspirators. As is their practice, government lawyers made no comment after the verdict. Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing told reporters outside the courthouse that Manafort is evaluating his options. "Mr. Manafort is disappointed at not getting acquittals all the way through or a complete hung jury on all counts," Downing said.</quote> https://www.npr.org/2018/08/21/640544009/donald-trumps-longtime-attorney-michael-cohen-reaches-plea-deal-with-feds <quote>Updated at 6:16 p.m. ET Michael Cohen, President Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer, has pleaded guilty to eight counts in federal court in New York, federal prosecutors announced Tuesday evening. They include five counts of tax evasion, one count of falsifying submissions to a bank and two counts involving unlawful campaign contributions. Cohen's conduct "reflects a pattern of lies and dishonesty over a significant period of time," said Robert Khuzami, deputy U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan. The counts related to campaign finance violations involved payments that were made to keep two women quiet during the campaign, Khuzami said, noting that Cohen was "repaid at the direction of the candidate." Khuzami noted that Cohen was repaid by the campaign with invoices for "services rendered." Those "invoices were a sham," Khuzami said. They were "merely reimbursement for illegal campaign contributions." Cohen said in court that he made the excessive contributions in the summer of 2016, and in October of 2016 at the direction of a federal candidate. While Cohen did not name President Trump, it's clear that is who he is referring to given the timeline and circumstances.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/21/18 6:27:36 PM #2:	inb4 goalpost moving --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:907304609] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>inb4 goalpost moving</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 08/21/18 6:36:28 PM #3:	WastelandCowboy posted... The counts related to campaign finance violations involved payments that were made to keep two women quiet during the campaign, Khuzami said, noting that Cohen was "repaid at the direction of the candidate." Khuzami noted that Cohen was repaid by the campaign with invoices for "services rendered." Those "invoices were a sham," Khuzami said. They were "merely reimbursement for illegal campaign contributions." Wait, so was Cohen reimbursed with campaign money or did he use campaign money which was then reimbursed? Otherwise for something that's supposedly not a giant fishing expedition, it's really looking more and more like a giant fishing expedition. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:907305161] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>WastelandCowboy posted...</cite> <quote>The counts related to campaign finance violations involved payments that were made to keep two women quiet during the campaign, Khuzami said, noting that Cohen was "repaid at the direction of the candidate." Khuzami noted that Cohen was repaid by the campaign with invoices for "services rendered." Those "invoices were a sham," Khuzami said. They were "merely reimbursement for illegal campaign contributions."</quote> Wait, so was Cohen reimbursed with campaign money or did he use campaign money which was then reimbursed? Otherwise for something that's supposedly not a giant fishing expedition, it's really looking more and more like a giant fishing expedition.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 08/21/18 6:40:58 PM #4:	--- https://i.imgtc.com/s5SZnYd.jpg <cite>Blighboy posted [p:907305401] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 08/21/18 6:42:58 PM #5:	Blighboy posted... Shamelessly whiting out pictures is my favorite thing. --- ImmortalityV, "I would like to kiss Icoyar to be honest in a non gay way though" <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:907305511] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote></quote> Shamelessly whiting out pictures is my favorite thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Andromicus 08/21/18 6:43:20 PM #6:	Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys --- PotD's official master braider <cite>Andromicus posted [p:907305525] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87 08/21/18 6:44:24 PM #7:	Andromicus posted... Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys Yes. Both of the political options were awful. --- ImmortalityV, "I would like to kiss Icoyar to be honest in a non gay way though" <cite>shadowsword87 posted [p:907305577] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Andromicus posted...</cite> <quote>Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys</quote> Yes. Both of the political options were awful.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Andromicus 08/21/18 6:47:11 PM #8:	She sold 40 tons, that's as many as four tens and that's terrible. --- PotD's official master braider <cite>Andromicus posted [p:907305730] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>She sold 40 tons, that's as many as four tens and that's terrible.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 08/21/18 7:08:23 PM #9:	Andromicus posted... Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys Six posts before a con brought up Hillary in a topic not in any way related to her, using a false factoid to boot (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/). I think that's a new record. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:907306962] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Andromicus posted...</cite> <quote>Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys</quote> Six posts before a con brought up Hillary in a topic not in any way related to her, using a false factoid to boot (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/). I think that's a new record.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 08/21/18 7:13:48 PM #10:	So...Manafort couldn't even get a single one of the charges outright dismissed, the best he could get was an inconclusive verdict that can be retried on 10 of the charges, despite facing a whopping 18 fucking charges. Damn, that's amazing! darkknight109 posted... Andromicus posted... Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys Six posts before a con brought up Hillary in a topic not in any way related to her, using a false factoid to boot. I think that's a new record. And Mead barely managed to squeak in Mead posted... inb4 goalpost moving 6 minutes before Zeus (of course it was Zeus, lol) did exactly that. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:907307302] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>So...Manafort couldn't even get a single one of the charges outright dismissed, the best he could get was an inconclusive verdict that can be retried on 10 of the charges, despite facing a whopping 18 fucking charges. Damn, that's amazing! <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Andromicus posted...</cite> <quote>Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys</quote> Six posts before a con brought up Hillary in a topic not in any way related to her, using a false factoid to boot. I think that's a new record.</quote> And Mead barely managed to squeak in <cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>inb4 goalpost moving</quote> 6 minutes before Zeus (of course it was Zeus, lol) did exactly that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
McSame_as_Bush 08/21/18 7:14:00 PM #11:	And the first member of Congress to endorse Trump was indicted. Drain the swamp! https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/duncan-hunter-campaign-charges/index.html --- I must admit you smell like fruity nuts and good grains. https://imgur.com/hdWdqvt <cite>McSame_as_Bush posted [p:907307321] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>And the first member of Congress to endorse Trump was indicted. Drain the swamp! https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/duncan-hunter-campaign-charges/index.html</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 08/21/18 7:20:32 PM #12:	So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening. But if Manafort and Cohen get plea deals to provide proof Trump broke...multiple laws, it seems... I mean, Democrats won't have the guts to impeach Trump even if they win the House and Senate, it'll be "too political" like it was w/ Bush and the whole Iraq War and torture thing. But I don't see how someone can still be president when they're a criminal, and there's no way in hell Trump would ever voluntarily relinquish power, so it'd basically have to fall to the courts to force the issue. But that's just so crazy... <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:907307718] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening. But if Manafort and Cohen get plea deals to provide proof Trump broke...multiple laws, it seems... I mean, Democrats won't have the guts to impeach Trump even if they win the House and Senate, it'll be "too political" like it was w/ Bush and the whole Iraq War and torture thing. But I don't see how someone can still be president when they're a criminal, and there's no way in hell Trump would ever voluntarily relinquish power, so it'd basically have to fall to the courts to force the issue. But that's just so crazy...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 08/21/18 7:22:09 PM #13:	Zeus posted... Otherwise for something that's supposedly not a giant fishing expedition, it's really looking more and more like a giant fishing expedition. Suspecting somebody of a crime, investigating them for that crime, and then finding them guilty of that crime constitutes a fishing expedition? And here I thought that's how the entire justice system worked or something. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:907307816] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Otherwise for something that's supposedly not a giant fishing expedition, it's really looking more and more like a giant fishing expedition.</quote> Suspecting somebody of a crime, investigating them for that crime, and then finding them guilty of that crime constitutes a fishing expedition? And here I thought that's how the entire justice system worked or something.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#14	Post #14 was unavailable or deleted.
knivesX2004 08/21/18 7:25:26 PM #15:	Andromicus posted... She sold 40 tons, that's as many as four tens and that's terrible. When nobody was looking. <cite>knivesX2004 posted [p:907308033] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Andromicus posted...</cite> <quote>She sold 40 tons, that's as many as four tens and that's terrible.</quote> When nobody was looking.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
McSame_as_Bush 08/21/18 7:26:47 PM #16:	streamofthesky posted... So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening. Unknown. The court's would have to rule, but from what I've read, he probably can't be indicted. He probably could be subpoenaed, but that would also be decided in court. --- I must admit you smell like fruity nuts and good grains. https://imgur.com/hdWdqvt <cite>McSame_as_Bush posted [p:907308103] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening.</quote> Unknown. The court's would have to rule, but from what I've read, he probably can't be indicted. He probably could be subpoenaed, but that would also be decided in court.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 08/21/18 7:33:46 PM #17:	McSame_as_Bush posted... streamofthesky posted... So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening. Unknown. The court's would have to rule, but from what I've read, he probably can't be indicted. He probably could be subpoenaed, but that would also be decided in court. If a sitting president can't be subpoenaed or indicted and literally can't be put on trial for anything, wouldn't that make him "above the law" and completely undermine the entire concept of a Democracy/Republic? Imagine if the courts did decide that! <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:907308482] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>McSame_as_Bush posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening.</quote> Unknown. The court's would have to rule, but from what I've read, he probably can't be indicted. He probably could be subpoenaed, but that would also be decided in court.</quote> If a sitting president can't be subpoenaed or indicted and literally can't be put on trial for anything, wouldn't that make him "above the law" and completely undermine the entire concept of a Democracy/Republic? Imagine if the courts did decide that!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Andromicus 08/21/18 7:35:27 PM #18:	Class 5 Twitter tantrum incoming! --- PotD's official master braider <cite>Andromicus posted [p:907308576] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>Class 5 Twitter tantrum incoming!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
McSame_as_Bush 08/21/18 7:36:14 PM #19:	streamofthesky posted... McSame_as_Bush posted... streamofthesky posted... So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening. Unknown. The court's would have to rule, but from what I've read, he probably can't be indicted. He probably could be subpoenaed, but that would also be decided in court. If a sitting president can't be subpoenaed or indicted and literally can't be put on trial for anything, wouldn't that make him "above the law" and completely undermine the entire concept of a Democracy/Republic? Imagine if the courts did decide that! He would be fair game if he is removed from office. --- I must admit you smell like fruity nuts and good grains. https://imgur.com/hdWdqvt <cite>McSame_as_Bush posted [p:907308621] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote><cite>McSame_as_Bush posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening.</quote> Unknown. The court's would have to rule, but from what I've read, he probably can't be indicted. He probably could be subpoenaed, but that would also be decided in court.</quote> If a sitting president can't be subpoenaed or indicted and literally can't be put on trial for anything, wouldn't that make him "above the law" and completely undermine the entire concept of a Democracy/Republic? Imagine if the courts did decide that!</quote> He would be fair game if he is removed from office.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/21/18 7:37:28 PM #20:	Andromicus posted... Class 5 Twitter tantrum incoming! Wonder if hell even wait until sentencing before he pardons him --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:907308692] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Andromicus posted...</cite> <quote>Class 5 Twitter tantrum incoming!</quote> Wonder if hell even wait until sentencing before he pardons him</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#21	Post #21 was unavailable or deleted.
streamofthesky 08/21/18 7:42:13 PM #22:	McSame_as_Bush posted... streamofthesky posted... McSame_as_Bush posted... streamofthesky posted... So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening. Unknown. The court's would have to rule, but from what I've read, he probably can't be indicted. He probably could be subpoenaed, but that would also be decided in court. If a sitting president can't be subpoenaed or indicted and literally can't be put on trial for anything, wouldn't that make him "above the law" and completely undermine the entire concept of a Democracy/Republic? Imagine if the courts did decide that! He would be fair game if he is removed from office. Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes? Zangulus posted... He's not above the law. He can be impeached or removed from office. Then he can be brought to trial for his crimes. And if Congress is too sycophantic (Republican-controlled) or spineless (Democrat-controlled) to remove him from office? <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:907308982] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>McSame_as_Bush posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote><cite>McSame_as_Bush posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening.</quote> Unknown. The court's would have to rule, but from what I've read, he probably can't be indicted. He probably could be subpoenaed, but that would also be decided in court.</quote> If a sitting president can't be subpoenaed or indicted and literally can't be put on trial for anything, wouldn't that make him "above the law" and completely undermine the entire concept of a Democracy/Republic? Imagine if the courts did decide that!</quote> He would be fair game if he is removed from office.</quote> Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes? <cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>He's not above the law. He can be impeached or removed from office. Then he can be brought to trial for his crimes.</quote> And if Congress is too sycophantic (Republican-controlled) or spineless (Democrat-controlled) to remove him from office?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#23	Post #23 was unavailable or deleted.
streamofthesky 08/21/18 7:45:18 PM #24:	Zangulus posted... streamofthesky posted... Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes? Yes, but his american business interests wouldn't fair so well doing so. I think "losing a lot of money" still beats "rest of life in jail." Dude's well versed in the "art of the deal" and all. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:907309181] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes?</quote> Yes, but his american business interests wouldn't fair so well doing so.</quote> I think "losing a lot of money" still beats "rest of life in jail." Dude's well versed in the "art of the deal" and all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
McSame_as_Bush 08/21/18 7:47:59 PM #25:	Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes? Maybe. He has property/money all over the world to go after. Cut off his bank accounts. Most countries would also be willing to arrest him and send him back. --- I must admit you smell like fruity nuts and good grains. https://imgur.com/hdWdqvt <cite>McSame_as_Bush posted [p:907309331] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><quote>Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes?</quote> Maybe. He has property/money all over the world to go after. Cut off his bank accounts. Most countries would also be willing to arrest him and send him back.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 08/21/18 7:50:30 PM #26:	McSame_as_Bush posted... Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes? Maybe. He has property/money all over the world to go after. Cut off his bank accounts. Most countries would also be willing to arrest him and send him back. He also has till January 2021. If things look like they're going to the crapper early enough, he'd have plenty of time to wind down and liquidate his assets. I'm sure he'd still lose a lot of money, but I doubt he'd be anywhere close to penniless. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:907309487] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>McSame_as_Bush posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes?</quote> Maybe. He has property/money all over the world to go after. Cut off his bank accounts. Most countries would also be willing to arrest him and send him back.</quote> He also has till January 2021. If things look like they're going to the crapper early enough, he'd have plenty of time to wind down and liquidate his assets. I'm sure he'd still lose a lot of money, but I doubt he'd be anywhere close to penniless.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
McSame_as_Bush 08/21/18 7:55:58 PM #27:	streamofthesky posted... McSame_as_Bush posted... Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes? Maybe. He has property/money all over the world to go after. Cut off his bank accounts. Most countries would also be willing to arrest him and send him back. He also has till January 2021. If things look like they're going to the crapper early enough, he'd have plenty of time to wind down and liquidate his assets. I'm sure he'd still lose a lot of money, but I doubt he'd be anywhere close to penniless. It would be impossible to do that without being noticed. --- I must admit you smell like fruity nuts and good grains. https://imgur.com/hdWdqvt <cite>McSame_as_Bush posted [p:907309807] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote><cite>McSame_as_Bush posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes?</quote> Maybe. He has property/money all over the world to go after. Cut off his bank accounts. Most countries would also be willing to arrest him and send him back.</quote> He also has till January 2021. If things look like they're going to the crapper early enough, he'd have plenty of time to wind down and liquidate his assets. I'm sure he'd still lose a lot of money, but I doubt he'd be anywhere close to penniless.</quote> It would be impossible to do that without being noticed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BADoglick 08/21/18 8:01:00 PM #28:	darkknight109 posted... Andromicus posted... Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys Six posts before a con brought up Hillary in a topic not in any way related to her, using a false factoid to boot (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/). I think that's a new record. I'm no fan of the whataboutism either, even if I agree with his point that she was just awful. But dude you gotta stop treating Snopes like it's this infallible beacon of truth. Snopes is basically a know it all fat dude, his mistress and a cat projecting their clearly biased opinions as truth without any real procedure for verification. --- BADoglick to the Max! <cite>BADoglick posted [p:907310111] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Andromicus posted...</cite> <quote>Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys</quote> Six posts before a con brought up Hillary in a topic not in any way related to her, using a false factoid to boot (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/). I think that's a new record.</quote> I'm no fan of the whataboutism either, even if I agree with his point that she was just awful. But dude you gotta stop treating Snopes like it's this infallible beacon of truth. Snopes is basically a know it all fat dude, his mistress and a cat projecting their clearly biased opinions as truth without any real procedure for verification.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 08/21/18 8:05:05 PM #29:	McSame_as_Bush posted... streamofthesky posted... McSame_as_Bush posted... Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes? Maybe. He has property/money all over the world to go after. Cut off his bank accounts. Most countries would also be willing to arrest him and send him back. He also has till January 2021. If things look like they're going to the crapper early enough, he'd have plenty of time to wind down and liquidate his assets. I'm sure he'd still lose a lot of money, but I doubt he'd be anywhere close to penniless. It would be impossible to do that without being noticed. would he care if it's noticed? At that point, he's clearly broken the law and going to jail and the only thing preventing that is him being president. He really has nothing to lose at that point just blatantly doing illegal financial shit while he still can, to salvage as much of his wealth as possible. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:907310351] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>McSame_as_Bush posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote><cite>McSame_as_Bush posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes?</quote> Maybe. He has property/money all over the world to go after. Cut off his bank accounts. Most countries would also be willing to arrest him and send him back.</quote> He also has till January 2021. If things look like they're going to the crapper early enough, he'd have plenty of time to wind down and liquidate his assets. I'm sure he'd still lose a lot of money, but I doubt he'd be anywhere close to penniless.</quote> It would be impossible to do that without being noticed.</quote> would he care if it's noticed? At that point, he's clearly broken the law and going to jail and the only thing preventing that is him being president. He really has nothing to lose at that point just blatantly doing illegal financial shit while he still can, to salvage as much of his wealth as possible.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
McSame_as_Bush 08/21/18 8:08:06 PM #30:	streamofthesky posted... McSame_as_Bush posted... streamofthesky posted... McSame_as_Bush posted... Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes? Maybe. He has property/money all over the world to go after. Cut off his bank accounts. Most countries would also be willing to arrest him and send him back. He also has till January 2021. If things look like they're going to the crapper early enough, he'd have plenty of time to wind down and liquidate his assets. I'm sure he'd still lose a lot of money, but I doubt he'd be anywhere close to penniless. It would be impossible to do that without being noticed. would he care if it's noticed? At that point, he's clearly broken the law and going to jail and the only thing preventing that is him being president. He really has nothing to lose at that point just blatantly doing illegal financial shit while he still can, to salvage as much of his wealth as possible. Yes, he would be removed from office. --- I must admit you smell like fruity nuts and good grains. https://imgur.com/hdWdqvt <cite>McSame_as_Bush posted [p:907310535] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote><cite>McSame_as_Bush posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote><cite>McSame_as_Bush posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Couldn't he literally order Air Force One to fly him to Russia on Jan 5, 2021 (or pick whatever date before new term starts) and leave w/o him? Among other less outlandish "brazenly waltz right out of U.S. custody before losing power" schemes?</quote> Maybe. He has property/money all over the world to go after. Cut off his bank accounts. Most countries would also be willing to arrest him and send him back.</quote> He also has till January 2021. If things look like they're going to the crapper early enough, he'd have plenty of time to wind down and liquidate his assets. I'm sure he'd still lose a lot of money, but I doubt he'd be anywhere close to penniless.</quote> It would be impossible to do that without being noticed.</quote> would he care if it's noticed? At that point, he's clearly broken the law and going to jail and the only thing preventing that is him being president. He really has nothing to lose at that point just blatantly doing illegal financial shit while he still can, to salvage as much of his wealth as possible.</quote> Yes, he would be removed from office.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#31	Post #31 was unavailable or deleted.
Zeus 08/21/18 8:15:43 PM #32:	Blighboy posted... If I wasn't so lazy, I'd edit that to say "Bligh," "Ignoring what Zeus actually said," and "Claiming Zeus said something different." Not that it's worth responding to any of Bligh's trolling in the first place. streamofthesky posted... 6 minutes before Zeus (of course it was Zeus, lol) did exactly that. Actual posts take longer than Mead's shitposts and none of that is goalpost moving. This is supposed to be an investigation into Russian meddling and instead it's focusing on hush money paid by an American lawyer to an American citizen. If anything is goalpost moving, it's claiming that this falls under a Russia investigation. It's straight-up fishing. streamofthesky posted... So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening. What's the actual crime? I still haven't received an answer to my previous question about the hush money. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:907311039] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote></quote> If I wasn't so lazy, I'd edit that to say "Bligh," "Ignoring what Zeus actually said," and "Claiming Zeus said something different." Not that it's worth responding to any of Bligh's trolling in the first place. <cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote> 6 minutes before Zeus (of course it was Zeus, lol) did exactly that.</quote> Actual posts take longer than Mead's shitposts and none of that is goalpost moving. This is supposed to be an investigation into Russian meddling and instead it's focusing on hush money paid by an American lawyer to an American citizen. If anything is goalpost moving, it's claiming that this falls under a Russia investigation. It's straight-up fishing. <cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening.</quote> What's the actual crime? I still haven't received an answer to my previous question about the hush money.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PuddingBoy 08/21/18 8:21:47 PM #33:	Zeus posted... streamofthesky posted... 6 minutes before Zeus (of course it was Zeus, lol) did exactly that. Actual posts take longer than Mead's shitposts and none of that is goalpost moving. This is supposed to be an investigation into Russian meddling and instead it's focusing on hush money paid by an American lawyer to an American citizen. If anything is goalpost moving, it's claiming that this falls under a Russia investigation. It's straight-up fishing. False. It falls under it because his scope, as defined by the attorney general, says Mueller had full rights to pursue anything that arose due to his investigation. ORDER NO. 3915-2017 b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a). So this is what he was hired to do and he hasn't strayed from it at all. Or should he just uncover illegal activities and then ignore them? --- 3DS Friend Code: 3308-5843-0863 Town: Virginia <cite>PuddingBoy posted [p:907311382] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote> 6 minutes before Zeus (of course it was Zeus, lol) did exactly that.</quote> Actual posts take longer than Mead's shitposts and none of that is goalpost moving. This is supposed to be an investigation into Russian meddling and instead it's focusing on hush money paid by an American lawyer to an American citizen. If anything is goalpost moving, it's claiming that this falls under a Russia investigation. It's straight-up fishing. </quote> False. It falls under it because his scope, as defined by the attorney general, says Mueller had full rights to pursue anything that arose due to his investigation. <cite>ORDER NO. 3915-2017</cite><quote>b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a). </quote> So this is what he was hired to do and he hasn't strayed from it at all. Or should he just uncover illegal activities and then ignore them?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 08/21/18 8:21:56 PM #34:	streamofthesky posted... So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening. Not legally tested, but he likely cannot. This was argued with both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton and the general consensus was that because the President has constitutionally assigned duties that a criminal trial would interfere with, he cannot be indicted or tried while holding office (this isn't a universally-held opinion, but it does seem to be where most legal scholars land on the issue). If Mueller uncovers evidence that Trump committed a crime, he could potentially pursue charges (which would send the issue of whether or not Trump can even be charged while still in office to the courts, almost assuredly winding up in the Supreme Court); more likely, though, he would pass things over to Congress who would decide whether to begin impeachment proceedings. If Trump is impeached and removed from office, then he can be charged and tried like anyone else. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:907311393] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>So, can a sitting president go on trial in a court of law and potentially get sent to jail? I assume so, but the idea is just so insane that I literally can't picture it happening. </quote> Not legally tested, but he likely cannot. This was argued with both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton and the general consensus was that because the President has constitutionally assigned duties that a criminal trial would interfere with, he cannot be indicted or tried while holding office (this isn't a universally-held opinion, but it does seem to be where most legal scholars land on the issue). If Mueller uncovers evidence that Trump committed a crime, he could potentially pursue charges (which would send the issue of whether or not Trump can even be charged while still in office to the courts, almost assuredly winding up in the Supreme Court); more likely, though, he would pass things over to Congress who would decide whether to begin impeachment proceedings. If Trump is impeached and removed from office, then he can be charged and tried like anyone else.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 08/21/18 8:26:53 PM #35:	BADoglick posted... But dude you gotta stop treating Snopes like it's this infallible beacon of truth. Snopes is basically a know it all fat dude, his mistress and a cat projecting their clearly biased opinions as truth without any real procedure for verification. If you don't like Snopes, how about this one? https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/ Or this one? https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/24/what-you-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/ Maybe this one? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/31/the-repeated-incorrect-claim-that-russia-obtained-20-percent-of-our-uranium/?utm_term=.bd18807e57af This one? https://www.weeklystandard.com/holmes-lybrand/fact-check-did-hillary-clinton-personally-approve-the-uranium-one-deal I can keep going, but the simple truth is that the idea that Hillary sold massive Uranium stocks to Russia unilaterally in return for campaign favours is pure fantasy. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:907311668] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>BADoglick posted...</cite> <quote>But dude you gotta stop treating Snopes like it's this infallible beacon of truth. Snopes is basically a know it all fat dude, his mistress and a cat projecting their clearly biased opinions as truth without any real procedure for verification.</quote> If you don't like Snopes, how about this one? https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/ Or this one? https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/24/what-you-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/ Maybe this one? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/31/the-repeated-incorrect-claim-that-russia-obtained-20-percent-of-our-uranium/?utm_term=.bd18807e57af This one? https://www.weeklystandard.com/holmes-lybrand/fact-check-did-hillary-clinton-personally-approve-the-uranium-one-deal I can keep going, but the simple truth is that the idea that Hillary sold massive Uranium stocks to Russia unilaterally in return for campaign favours is pure fantasy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/21/18 8:33:15 PM #36:	This is supposed to be an investigation into Russian meddling You realize this topic is also about the Manafort trial What am I saying, of course you dont --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:907312039] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><quote>This is supposed to be an investigation into Russian meddling</quote> You realize this topic is also about the Manafort trial What am I saying, of course you dont</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 08/21/18 8:38:08 PM #37:	PuddingBoy posted... Zeus posted... streamofthesky posted... 6 minutes before Zeus (of course it was Zeus, lol) did exactly that. Actual posts take longer than Mead's shitposts and none of that is goalpost moving. This is supposed to be an investigation into Russian meddling and instead it's focusing on hush money paid by an American lawyer to an American citizen. If anything is goalpost moving, it's claiming that this falls under a Russia investigation. It's straight-up fishing. False. It falls under it because his scope, as defined by the attorney general, says Mueller had full rights to pursue anything that arose due to his investigation. ORDER NO. 3915-2017 b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a). So this is what he was hired to do and he hasn't strayed from it at all. Or should he just uncover illegal activities and then ignore them? Hence "fishing expedition." After a certain point, it's pretty clear that the purview isn't to investigate Russian meddling but just to dig up dirt -- any dirt at all -- on Trump and/or his associates. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:907312324] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>PuddingBoy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote> 6 minutes before Zeus (of course it was Zeus, lol) did exactly that.</quote> Actual posts take longer than Mead's shitposts and none of that is goalpost moving. This is supposed to be an investigation into Russian meddling and instead it's focusing on hush money paid by an American lawyer to an American citizen. If anything is goalpost moving, it's claiming that this falls under a Russia investigation. It's straight-up fishing. </quote> False. It falls under it because his scope, as defined by the attorney general, says Mueller had full rights to pursue anything that arose due to his investigation. <cite>ORDER NO. 3915-2017</cite><quote>b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a). </quote> So this is what he was hired to do and he hasn't strayed from it at all. Or should he just uncover illegal activities and then ignore them?</quote> Hence "fishing expedition." After a certain point, it's pretty clear that the purview isn't to investigate Russian meddling but just to dig up dirt -- any dirt at all -- on Trump and/or his associates.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/21/18 8:41:25 PM #38:	By dirt Do you mean crimes --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:907312488] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>By dirt Do you mean crimes</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 08/21/18 8:41:41 PM #39:	Shouldn't have tried to obstruct justice I guess --- https://i.imgtc.com/s5SZnYd.jpg <cite>Blighboy posted [p:907312508] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>Shouldn't have tried to obstruct justice I guess </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 08/21/18 8:43:16 PM #40:	Mead posted... By dirt Do you mean crimes Didn't you get the memo? Crimes are totally OK, as long as a politician you like (or someone tied to them) is the one committing them. #FishingExpedition --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:907312602] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>By dirt Do you mean crimes</quote> Didn't you get the memo? Crimes are totally OK, as long as a politician you like (or someone tied to them) is the one committing them. #FishingExpedition</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PuddingBoy 08/21/18 8:51:38 PM #41:	Zeus posted... PuddingBoy posted... Zeus posted... streamofthesky posted... 6 minutes before Zeus (of course it was Zeus, lol) did exactly that. Actual posts take longer than Mead's shitposts and none of that is goalpost moving. This is supposed to be an investigation into Russian meddling and instead it's focusing on hush money paid by an American lawyer to an American citizen. If anything is goalpost moving, it's claiming that this falls under a Russia investigation. It's straight-up fishing. False. It falls under it because his scope, as defined by the attorney general, says Mueller had full rights to pursue anything that arose due to his investigation. ORDER NO. 3915-2017 b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a). So this is what he was hired to do and he hasn't strayed from it at all. Or should he just uncover illegal activities and then ignore them? Hence "fishing expedition." After a certain point, it's pretty clear that the purview isn't to investigate Russian meddling but just to dig up dirt -- any dirt at all -- on Trump and/or his associates. So you ARE saying that the illegal activities performed by those being investigated should just be ignored. Gotcha. I'm glad we have your left-leaning centrist opinion on this one. --- 3DS Friend Code: 3308-5843-0863 Town: Virginia <cite>PuddingBoy posted [p:907313091] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PuddingBoy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote> 6 minutes before Zeus (of course it was Zeus, lol) did exactly that.</quote> Actual posts take longer than Mead's shitposts and none of that is goalpost moving. This is supposed to be an investigation into Russian meddling and instead it's focusing on hush money paid by an American lawyer to an American citizen. If anything is goalpost moving, it's claiming that this falls under a Russia investigation. It's straight-up fishing. </quote> False. It falls under it because his scope, as defined by the attorney general, says Mueller had full rights to pursue anything that arose due to his investigation. <cite>ORDER NO. 3915-2017</cite><quote>b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a). </quote> So this is what he was hired to do and he hasn't strayed from it at all. Or should he just uncover illegal activities and then ignore them?</quote> Hence "fishing expedition." After a certain point, it's pretty clear that the purview isn't to investigate Russian meddling but just to dig up dirt -- any dirt at all -- on Trump and/or his associates.</quote> So you ARE saying that the illegal activities performed by those being investigated should just be ignored. Gotcha. I'm glad we have your left-leaning centrist opinion on this one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 08/21/18 8:58:22 PM #42:	I love that Zeus dismisses any point that highlights the glaring flaws in his arguments as shitposting and trolling --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:907313469] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>I love that Zeus dismisses any point that highlights the glaring flaws in his arguments as shitposting and trolling</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 08/21/18 8:59:52 PM #43:	darkknight109 posted... Mead posted... By dirt Do you mean crimes Didn't you get the memo? Crimes are totally OK, as long as a politician you like (or someone tied to them) is the one committing them. #FishingExpedition Scrutinizing individuals up and down just to see if they committed any crimes is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. If either one of you was being investigated for robbery and, when the cops can't find anything, they decide to turn around to investigate whether you've been selling drugs, paying your taxes, looking into what your friends are doing, search your computers just in case you have child porn, etc, you might understandably cry foul. And that's the fundamental issue with fishing expeditions, you keep digging until you something -- anything -- and sooner or later you're going to find that somebody has broken a law of some kind. This investigation has increasingly become clear that it's just to find anything rather than things pertaining to allegations of Russian interference, especially given that the biggest claims of Russian interference -- including rigging polls -- have been debunked, which is why the goalposts have been moved to things like ad buys. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:907313566] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>By dirt Do you mean crimes</quote> Didn't you get the memo? Crimes are totally OK, as long as a politician you like (or someone tied to them) is the one committing them. #FishingExpedition</quote> Scrutinizing individuals up and down just to see if they committed any crimes is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. If either one of you was being investigated for robbery and, when the cops can't find anything, they decide to turn around to investigate whether you've been selling drugs, paying your taxes, looking into what your friends are doing, search your computers just in case you have child porn, etc, you might understandably cry foul. And that's the fundamental issue with fishing expeditions, you keep digging until you something -- anything -- and sooner or later you're going to find that somebody has broken a law of some kind. This investigation has increasingly become clear that it's just to find anything rather than things pertaining to allegations of Russian interference, especially given that the biggest claims of Russian interference -- including rigging polls -- have been debunked, which is why the goalposts have been moved to things like ad buys.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Andromicus 08/21/18 9:02:14 PM #44:	Zeus posted... darkknight109 posted... Mead posted... By dirt Do you mean crimes Didn't you get the memo? Crimes are totally OK, as long as a politician you like (or someone tied to them) is the one committing them. #FishingExpedition Scrutinizing individuals up and down just to see if they committed any crimes is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. If either one of you was being investigated for robbery and, when the cops can't find anything, they decide to turn around to investigate whether you've been selling drugs, paying your taxes, looking into what your friends are doing, search your computers just in case you have child porn, etc, you might understandably cry foul. And that's the fundamental issue with fishing expeditions, you keep digging until you something -- anything -- and sooner or later you're going to find that somebody has broken a law of some kind. This investigation has increasingly become clear that it's just to find anything rather than things pertaining to allegations of Russian interference, especially given that the biggest claims of Russian interference -- including rigging polls -- have been debunked, which is why the goalposts have been moved to things like ad buys. So are you saying they shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they committed just because they weren't apparent from the outset? --- PotD's official master braider <cite>Andromicus posted [p:907313724] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>By dirt Do you mean crimes</quote> Didn't you get the memo? Crimes are totally OK, as long as a politician you like (or someone tied to them) is the one committing them. #FishingExpedition</quote> Scrutinizing individuals up and down just to see if they committed any crimes is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. If either one of you was being investigated for robbery and, when the cops can't find anything, they decide to turn around to investigate whether you've been selling drugs, paying your taxes, looking into what your friends are doing, search your computers just in case you have child porn, etc, you might understandably cry foul. And that's the fundamental issue with fishing expeditions, you keep digging until you something -- anything -- and sooner or later you're going to find that somebody has broken a law of some kind. This investigation has increasingly become clear that it's just to find anything rather than things pertaining to allegations of Russian interference, especially given that the biggest claims of Russian interference -- including rigging polls -- have been debunked, which is why the goalposts have been moved to things like ad buys.</quote> So are you saying they shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they committed just because they weren't apparent from the outset?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Star_Spirit 08/21/18 9:04:14 PM #45:	hahaha fuck trump and his supporters Andromicus posted... Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys mad? --- "A prostitute is like any other woman, they all trade something for sex." -Trey Parker <cite>Star_Spirit posted [p:907313861] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>hahaha fuck trump and his supporters <cite>Andromicus posted...</cite> <quote>Just a reminder that Hillary sold uranium to the Russians guys</quote> mad?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 08/21/18 9:06:00 PM #46:	Mead posted... I love that Zeus dismisses any point that highlights the glaring flaws in his arguments as shitposting and trolling I love that Mead completely ignores what's actually being said and done before inserting his own reality. Your shitpost that I called a shitpost wasn't even responding to anything I posted, let alone talking about any argument. Bligh's troll meme image was a troll post which not only addressed nothing, but misrepresented what I said. And your troll post now is doing a little of A and a little of B. But I know you're going to ignore this and go on with your nonsense. PuddingBoy posted... So you ARE saying that the illegal activities performed by those being investigated should just be ignored. Gotcha. I'm glad we have your left-leaning centrist opinion on this one. No, I'm saying that investigations shouldn't be so broad and open-ended that you're simply looking for anything you can find -- whether or not is pertains at all to the stated purpose of the investigation -- in a politicized attack to take down a candidate. This is like if the Monica Lewinksy investigation had been used to go through Bill Clinton's tax records to make sure he was paying what he owed the government, which is the direction that this investigation has started to take. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:907313991] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>I love that Zeus dismisses any point that highlights the glaring flaws in his arguments as shitposting and trolling</quote> I love that Mead completely ignores what's actually being said and done before inserting his own reality. Your shitpost that I called a shitpost wasn't even responding to anything I posted, let alone talking about any argument. Bligh's troll meme image was a troll post which not only addressed nothing, but misrepresented what I said. And your troll post now is doing a little of A and a little of B. But I know you're going to ignore this and go on with your nonsense. <cite>PuddingBoy posted...</cite> <quote>So you ARE saying that the illegal activities performed by those being investigated should just be ignored. Gotcha. I'm glad we have your left-leaning centrist opinion on this one.</quote> No, I'm saying that investigations shouldn't be so broad and open-ended that you're simply looking for anything you can find -- whether or not is pertains at all to the stated purpose of the investigation -- in a politicized attack to take down a candidate. This is like if the Monica Lewinksy investigation had been used to go through Bill Clinton's tax records to make sure he was paying what he owed the government, which is the direction that this investigation has started to take.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 08/21/18 9:12:34 PM #47:	Andromicus posted... Zeus posted... Scrutinizing individuals up and down just to see if they committed any crimes is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. If either one of you was being investigated for robbery and, when the cops can't find anything, they decide to turn around to investigate whether you've been selling drugs, paying your taxes, looking into what your friends are doing, search your computers just in case you have child porn, etc, you might understandably cry foul. And that's the fundamental issue with fishing expeditions, you keep digging until you something -- anything -- and sooner or later you're going to find that somebody has broken a law of some kind. This investigation has increasingly become clear that it's just to find anything rather than things pertaining to allegations of Russian interference, especially given that the biggest claims of Russian interference -- including rigging polls -- have been debunked, which is why the goalposts have been moved to things like ad buys. So are you saying they shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they committed just because they weren't apparent from the outset? No, I'm saying that justice departments investigations aren't there simply to see what shakes loose, which is increasingly the form that this investigation is taking. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fishing_expedition Fishing Expedition Definition from Nolos Plain-English Law Dictionary Legal grasping at straws; the use of pretrial investigation discovery or witness questioning in an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence to be used against an adversary. The problem isn't whether or not something happened, but the broad scope in hopes of just find anything they can use. Which again comes back to my previous remarks because it's an unethical method of discovery. And, if you're arguing, "Who cares? Guilt is guilt," you might as well toss out Fruit of the Poisonous Tree arguments because if you have a detective decide to break into somebody's home and he discovers a body, your argument would justify the break-in because he later found something. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:907314458] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Andromicus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Scrutinizing individuals up and down just to see if they committed any crimes is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. If either one of you was being investigated for robbery and, when the cops can't find anything, they decide to turn around to investigate whether you've been selling drugs, paying your taxes, looking into what your friends are doing, search your computers just in case you have child porn, etc, you might understandably cry foul. And that's the fundamental issue with fishing expeditions, you keep digging until you something -- anything -- and sooner or later you're going to find that somebody has broken a law of some kind. This investigation has increasingly become clear that it's just to find anything rather than things pertaining to allegations of Russian interference, especially given that the biggest claims of Russian interference -- including rigging polls -- have been debunked, which is why the goalposts have been moved to things like ad buys.</quote> So are you saying they shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they committed just because they weren't apparent from the outset?</quote> No, I'm saying that justice departments investigations aren't there simply to see what shakes loose, which is increasingly the form that this investigation is taking. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fishing_expedition <quote>Fishing Expedition Definition from Nolos Plain-English Law Dictionary Legal grasping at straws; the use of pretrial investigation discovery or witness questioning in an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence to be used against an adversary.</quote> The problem isn't whether or not something happened, but the broad scope in hopes of just find anything they can use. Which again comes back to my previous remarks because it's an unethical method of discovery. And, if you're arguing, "Who cares? Guilt is guilt," you might as well toss out Fruit of the Poisonous Tree arguments because if you have a detective decide to break into somebody's home and he discovers a body, your argument would justify the break-in because he later found something.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ClarkDuke 08/21/18 9:50:33 PM #48:	The idea that were always getting better, keeps us from seeing those times when were getting worse, ok? @Zeus is the poster child for that chest thumping ignorance, ok? --- https://imgur.com/qL0DHFI https://imgur.com/JL9rRLt https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ <cite>ClarkDuke posted [p:907316803] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>The idea that were always getting better, keeps us from seeing those times when were getting worse, ok? @Zeus is the poster child for that chest thumping ignorance, ok?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
McSame_as_Bush 08/21/18 10:13:11 PM #49:	Zeus posted... Andromicus posted... Zeus posted... Scrutinizing individuals up and down just to see if they committed any crimes is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. If either one of you was being investigated for robbery and, when the cops can't find anything, they decide to turn around to investigate whether you've been selling drugs, paying your taxes, looking into what your friends are doing, search your computers just in case you have child porn, etc, you might understandably cry foul. And that's the fundamental issue with fishing expeditions, you keep digging until you something -- anything -- and sooner or later you're going to find that somebody has broken a law of some kind. This investigation has increasingly become clear that it's just to find anything rather than things pertaining to allegations of Russian interference, especially given that the biggest claims of Russian interference -- including rigging polls -- have been debunked, which is why the goalposts have been moved to things like ad buys. So are you saying they shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they committed just because they weren't apparent from the outset? No, I'm saying that justice departments investigations aren't there simply to see what shakes loose, which is increasingly the form that this investigation is taking. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fishing_expedition Fishing Expedition Definition from Nolos Plain-English Law Dictionary Legal grasping at straws; the use of pretrial investigation discovery or witness questioning in an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence to be used against an adversary. The problem isn't whether or not something happened, but the broad scope in hopes of just find anything they can use. Which again comes back to my previous remarks because it's an unethical method of discovery. And, if you're arguing, "Who cares? Guilt is guilt," you might as well toss out Fruit of the Poisonous Tree arguments because if you have a detective decide to break into somebody's home and he discovers a body, your argument would justify the break-in because he later found something. You're aware Manafort began his bank fraud because he was cut off from his income from Ukraine but wanted to maintain his lifestyle, right? It would be weird if Mueller did not find his crimes in the course of the investigation. --- I must admit you smell like fruity nuts and good grains. https://imgur.com/hdWdqvt <cite>McSame_as_Bush posted [p:907318163] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Andromicus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Scrutinizing individuals up and down just to see if they committed any crimes is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. If either one of you was being investigated for robbery and, when the cops can't find anything, they decide to turn around to investigate whether you've been selling drugs, paying your taxes, looking into what your friends are doing, search your computers just in case you have child porn, etc, you might understandably cry foul. And that's the fundamental issue with fishing expeditions, you keep digging until you something -- anything -- and sooner or later you're going to find that somebody has broken a law of some kind. This investigation has increasingly become clear that it's just to find anything rather than things pertaining to allegations of Russian interference, especially given that the biggest claims of Russian interference -- including rigging polls -- have been debunked, which is why the goalposts have been moved to things like ad buys.</quote> So are you saying they shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they committed just because they weren't apparent from the outset?</quote> No, I'm saying that justice departments investigations aren't there simply to see what shakes loose, which is increasingly the form that this investigation is taking. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fishing_expedition <quote>Fishing Expedition Definition from Nolos Plain-English Law Dictionary Legal grasping at straws; the use of pretrial investigation discovery or witness questioning in an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence to be used against an adversary.</quote> The problem isn't whether or not something happened, but the broad scope in hopes of just find anything they can use. Which again comes back to my previous remarks because it's an unethical method of discovery. And, if you're arguing, "Who cares? Guilt is guilt," you might as well toss out Fruit of the Poisonous Tree arguments because if you have a detective decide to break into somebody's home and he discovers a body, your argument would justify the break-in because he later found something.</quote> You're aware Manafort began his bank fraud because he was cut off from his income from Ukraine but wanted to maintain his lifestyle, right? It would be weird if Mueller did not find his crimes in the course of the investigation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Amuseum 08/21/18 10:13:28 PM #50:	18 charges , nothing to do with Russia. so why should we care about this investigation? --- Ergonomic keyboard layouts for Android https://goo.gl/KR1vK6 5-suited Draw Poker for Android http://goo.gl/KhmXi <cite>Amuseum posted [p:907318189] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote>18 charges , nothing to do with Russia. so why should we care about this investigation?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Fed. jury finds Paul Manafort guilty on 8/18 charges. Michael Cohen pled guilty. (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Fed. jury finds Paul Manafort guilty on 8/18 charges. Michael Cohen pled guilty.