Absent thread from the right

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Lmao !!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

after this latest thing with Kavanaugh...I have no regard for the dems whatsoever...they make trump look like a man of virtue in comparison...which is.... well......a pretty bad look..even for them...break out the big guns...time to battle the undead

[JohnR]

I have little regard for either party, currently based on the individual politicians and there are few worth regarding.

Wayne, we need clear and concise proof Trump did something that was actually wrong, illegal . An unwitting agent of Putin for example, not that he wanted dirt on HC. Did he say we'll trade sanctions for RUS hacking and exposing HRC for the witch she is and made an agreement with RUS? That would be for legal experts to determine. If he asked RUS to physically alter the elec results (if they even can) that would be different.

Right now the water is murky with a lot of crap from both sides and the continued silo of crap ain't helping.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I have little regard for either party, currently based on the individual politicians and there are few worth regarding.

.

can't argue with that....it's because we elect politicians and not public servants and "politician" has become a career goal

Manafort pleads for things done in 2012 and looks like an Obama lawyer(also Clinton lawyer) will also face charges, does this mean Obama was colluding...should we investigate?

[scottw]

interesting from Craig's wiki..." April 2018, Craig resigned from the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, following the indictment of Alex van der Zwaan, a lawyer at the firm's London office. Craig was the lead attorney supervising the firm's work for former Ukrainian president Yanukovich, in which Zwann participated. Zwaan was later charged by Mueller investigation and pleaded guilty to making false statements.[42][44] Later in 2018, NBC and CNN reported that following a referral from Mueller's office, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was investigating Craig and others, including ex-lobbyist Tony Podesta and former Republican U.S. Representative Vin Weber, as part of a broader investigation into the activities of Paul Manafort."


London?....Podesta?

Does Craig have a show on MSNBC yet?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Wayne, we need clear and concise proof Trump did something that was actually wrong, illegal . An unwitting agent of Putin for example, not that he wanted dirt on HC. Did he say we'll trade sanctions for RUS hacking and exposing HRC for the witch she is and made an agreement with RUS? That would be for legal experts to determine. If he asked RUS to physically alter the elec results (if they even can) that would be different.

The bar isn’t nearly that high, solid evidence of obstruction is easily enough.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The bar isn’t nearly that high, solid evidence of obstruction is easily enough.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

obstructing what?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

obstructing what?

Justice silly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Justice silly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what is the crime?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

what is the crime?

A lot of possible crimes, conspiracy to influence an election, money laundering etc... etc... it’s a known fact they tried to conspire and lied about it. Funny thing is even if there’s no good conspiracy case obstruction which looks likely is enough to violate Trump’s oath...many think there’s a lot more that Mueller already has. What are we up to now like 18 indictments and 8 pleading guilty?

Witch hunt?

Do you think Mueller would give up 6 convictions of manefort with many more comments ng if he didn’t have something significant to offer?

Why are you against the application of the law?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

obstructing what?

Hilary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Andy McCarthy

"Anti-Trumpers have visions of the walls closing in on the president. I would counter with what I said after the Virginia convictions:

At this point, it does not appear that Mueller has a collusion case against Trump associates. His indictments involving Russian hacking and troll farms do not suggest complicity by the Trump campaign. I also find it hard to believe Mueller sees Manafort as the key to making a case on Trump when Mueller has had [Richard] Gates — Manafort’s partner — as a cooperator for six months. You have to figure Gates knows whatever Manafort knows about collusion. Yet, since Gates began cooperating with the special counsel, Mueller has filed the charges against Russians that do not implicate Trump, and has transferred those cases to other Justice Department components.

I elaborated that, when it comes to Manafort, Mueller’s focus is not President Trump. It is Russia, “specifically, Manafort’s longtime connections to Kremlin-connected operatives.” This seems consistent with what Manafort’s camp is telling the press. Politico quotes a source close to Trump’s former campaign chairman: “The cooperation agreement does not involve the Trump campaign. . . .There was no collusion with Russia.”

The guilty plea serves Mueller’s purposes. He already had Manafort looking at a potential 80 years of prison exposure from the first case. He did not need another trial and additional jail time to ratchet up pressure. So prosecutors dropped the money-laundering charges as well as allegations that Manafort made false statements and failed to register as a foreign agent of a Kremlin-connected Ukranian party; but Mueller still got Manafort to admit to the underlying conduct in those charges by having the defendant plead guilty to the special counsel’s favorite device, the amorphous, elastic charge of “conspiracy against the United States.” In addition, Manafort pled guilty to obstructing justice — the witness-tampering allegation based on which he has been detained without bail.

The defendant, moreover, admitted guilt to the bank-fraud charges on which the Virginia jury hung. If Manafort cooperates to Mueller’s satisfaction, these unresolved counts will be dismissed; but the admissions would make it difficult for Manafort to fight the charges if they were ever retried.

The resolution of Manafort’s cases in a manner that spares both parties a second trial and months of appeals closes an important chapter in the special counsel’s investigation. It potentially brings the end into sight. That prospect, of course, intensifies speculation about the president’s status. To borrow, again, from what I said three weeks ago, Mueller’s focus on Trump seems to involve possible obstruction of the investigation, not so-called collusion.

If we assume, for argument’s sake, that the special counsel has wanted to make a criminal case on the president (I’ve never been fully convinced of this), the challenge Mueller has had from the start is that there was no underlying crime to predicate his investigation. He was rashly appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the uproar over the president’s ham-fisted firing of FBI director James Comey. But terminating executive-branch officers is not obstruction; it is a prerogative of the presidency. If it is done abusively or for unsavory motives, that could be grounds for impeachment, but not for criminal prosecution.

Ditto harassing the attorney general, contemplating the removal of the special counsel himself, and allegedly weighing in on whether Michael Flynn, the former national-security adviser, should be investigated. We can all agree — or, at least, many of us do agree — that it would be better if the president did not do such things. It should be indisputable, though, that the Constitution endows him with the authority to do them. If you don’t like it, vote him out of office . . . but it is not the business of prosecutors.

As for “collusion,” it is not a crime unless it rises to the level of conspiracy to violate a federal criminal law. At least publicly, despite all the intelligence leaks, there has never been credible evidence that the president conspired with the Russian regime to commit cyberespionage or any other crime"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

after this latest thing with Kavanaugh...I have no regard for the dems whatsoever...they make trump look like a man of virtue in comparison...which is.... well......a pretty bad look..even for them...break out the big guns...time to battle the undead

it was a new low, the kavanaugh hearings, it really was. even justice ginsberg called it out as wrong. and none of the dems here has anything to say about it. it’s a cult.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device