Judge in Manafort case says Mueller's aim is to hurt Trump

[Chomsky]

While you are talking about "probable cause", the Justice system through the judge is asking Mueller if the motive for bringing the case to his court was to squeeze him to get Trump. Motive can easily 'trump' probably cause when a judge feels a defendant is not being treated fairly. Mueller can't use "super dirty dog double secret" authority to try to muscle the judge to cooperate with the FBI's "unfettered powers". Bull****.

Mueller is going to be facing more headwinds as he moves to on. He's afraid to sentence Flynn, because Flynn will have a chance to change his plea and call Comey and the other agent as witnesses that he did not lie to the FBI.

Then we have the Russians pulling a cutie. They plead Not Guilty. WTF does that mean? That means their lawyers can ask for discovery documents from Mueller. LOL. This is getting good now. Mueller probably never expected that since foreign nationals are untouchable outside the country. "Vat vill ve learn, tovarish?" "Vee shall see at discovery-ski".

The justice system is about justice, not just winning cases.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory, and is only your opinion.

What is much more likely, is Flynn is still producing active intelligence for Mueller. That is far more likely than this conspiracy. Remember, Flynn agreed to the extension! :doh

 

[Anthony60]

LOL, you got busted repeating a right wing talking point with no basis in the facts. There's no evidence anywhere FBI knew of his complicated money laundering scheme, bank regulators knew of his scheme to inflate the income of his companies by laughable amounts to fraudulently obtain $millions in loans in 2015 or that IRS knew he had evaded $millions in taxes.

What's funny is even if the premise is true (and it's not), so what? No one can (with a straight face) argue that prosecuting those crimes is unjust or illegitimate.

Thanks for chiming in from the peanut gallery.

So, no one can make that argument? So they are not arguing that before the court right now? You should let all parties know that they can't do that.

 

[tres borrachos]

I strongly disagree. Of course those who despise the President, including even you who I can usually count on to be more objective about these things, want to believe that. But the decision to destroy the President was in the works at the FBI et al before the President ever took the oath of office. We have the Strzok/Page e-mails and other evidence for that. And until the American people realize that and make it unacceptable, we will see more and more of this kind of thing until nobody will be able to do their jobs in elective office.

I'm curious if you were this outraged when Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declared publicly that the single most important thing the Republicans wanted to achieve was making sure that Barack Obama was only a one-term President. Or does it only bother you when the left says that about Trump, who for decades was actually one of them?

It isn't unheard of to want to get rid of a President you don't like. I wanted Bill Clinton gone when he was impeached. I'm going to guess you did as well. But for some strange reason, you probably don't remember that.

 

[tres borrachos]

Thanks for chiming in from the peanut gallery.

So, no one can make that argument? So they are not arguing that before the court right now? You should let all parties know that they can't do that.

Anyone can make the argument that Manafort's alleged crimes weren't a secret to the DOJ and the IRS. And just like when you did it, decent people will ask that person to back up his claim, like we asked you to. Luckily for the others, nobody opted for such a dumb action, as you did.

 

[trixare4kids]

Well we each have our opinion, and I'm surely not going to discount yours.

I guess we'll see what rolls out of the IG report. But political lean, party affiliation, and personal opinion, do not necessarily imply dereliction of duty or criminal behaviour. I've seen some Trump supporters attempt to politicize this issue by claiming Mueller has Democrats in his midst! Wha? Now the Republican litmus test is being applied to our law enforcement agencies? Ridiculous. This is going too far with this politicization. Keep it in damn the voting booth!

The sooner the better we see the IG report the better... The sooner the Mueller investigation is over the better...The sooner Judge Ellis sees the orignial scope of the investigation the better.
I agree the politicization has gone too far but it's not coming all from the right... But political lean, party affiliation, and personal opinion, do not necessarily imply dereliction of duty or criminal behavior in our president. I've seen some anti-Trump peeps attempt to politicize this issue by claiming Putin has Trump in his midst.... (sorry but I couldn't resist)

 

[JasperL]

Thanks for chiming in from the peanut gallery.

So, no one can make that argument? So they are not arguing that before the court right now? You should let all parties know that they can't do that.

You're not being honest here. You posted a quote talking about 2014, that the Feds knew before he was anywhere near Trump he was a criminal, and now you're saying, well, sure, AFTER the Russia investigation started, the Feds found out about the money laundering, etc. The latter is correct, and he's been indicted and is now being prosecuted. If that's your point, it's a statement of the obvious.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well we each have our opinion, and I'm surely not going to discount yours.

I guess we'll see what rolls out of the IG report. But political lean, party affiliation, and personal opinion, do not necessarily imply dereliction of duty or criminal behaviour. I've seen some Trump supporters attempt to politicize this issue by claiming Mueller has Democrats in his midst! Wha? Now the Republican litmus test is being applied to our law enforcement agencies? Ridiculous. This is going too far with this politicization. Keep it in damn the voting booth!

Mueller doesn't have just Democrats in his midst. He has staunch, politically active Democrats, several (most?) of whom gave large donations to the Hillary campaign and/or DNC or other Democrats, some who worked actively for the Hillary campaign or who have done legal work for Hillary and/or the Clinton Foundation, etc. Some who have been exposed and forced to resign were actively working to undermine and, if possible, destroy President Trump. And there is nary a Republican supporter to be found on his team.

If the situation was reversed and we had a presumed Democrat appointed to investigate the President but his entire team was made up of Republicans, several (most?) who had contributed to candidate Trump, the RNC, and/or who had done legal work for the campaign or the Trump industries, and there was nary a Democrat to be found, would you see that as a fair and impartial investigation?

 

[Anthony60]

I'm curious if you were this outraged when Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declared publicly that the single most important thing the Republicans wanted to achieve was making sure that Barack Obama was only a one-term President. Or does it only bother you when the left says that about Trump, who for decades was actually one of them?

It isn't unheard of to want to get rid of a President you don't like. I wanted Bill Clinton gone when he was impeached. I'm going to guess you did as well. But for some strange reason, you probably don't remember that.

Why do you continue with these tired, old, ridiculous arguments? Sounds like you wanted Obama in office, and you wanted him to have a second term. And you wanted Hillary to win. Sure, you are not a leftist. Take a look in the mirror.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I'm curious if you were this outraged when Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declared publicly that the single most important thing the Republicans wanted to achieve was making sure that Barack Obama was only a one-term President. Or does it only bother you when the left says that about Trump, who for decades was actually one of them?

It isn't unheard of to want to get rid of a President you don't like. I wanted Bill Clinton gone when he was impeached. I'm going to guess you did as well. But for some strange reason, you probably don't remember that.

Mitch McConnell was suggesting that the Republicans needed to get their act together and elect Republicans including a Republican as President in 2012. I have never and will never see it as something sinister for a Democrat to state that they need to win at the ballot box.

That is a very different thing that working to destroy a sitting President of the United States.

 

[j-mac]

I'm not the one who said it was no secret that he committed crimes, and I'm not the one who said the DOJ and the IRS knew about them. You did. Yes, I'm being honest that you made a mistake in that post, and are now trying to back pedal on it. That's okay though. You probably didn't expect anyone to challenge your lie, like I did.

The judge in questioning the prosecutor already established that a case on this before Muller. So, not sure what you're trying to do here, but it is you who is being dishonest with this.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[tres borrachos]

Mitch McConnell was suggesting that the Republicans needed to get their act together and elect Republicans including a Republican as President in 2012. I have never and will never see it as something sinister for a Democrat to state that they need to win at the ballot box.

That is a very different thing that working to destroy a sitting President of the United States.

McConnell said it right out - make Obama a one term President. That's no different than what the Dems are doing to the guy who once voted for them, donated money to them, and supported them.

 

[tres borrachos]

Why do you continue with these tired, old, ridiculous arguments? Sounds like you wanted Obama in office, and you wanted him to have a second term. And you wanted Hillary to win. Sure, you are not a leftist. Take a look in the mirror.

How did you manage to bring Obama into this discussion and say I wanted him to have a second term, especially given the fact that you know I didn't vote for Obama - twice, in fact.

No, I didn't want Clinton to win. That's why I didn't vote for her.

Are you so rattled now that you're just flailing about, posting really stupid things?

 

[AlbqOwl]

McConnell said it right out - make Obama a one term President. That's no different than what the Dems are doing to the guy who once voted for them, donated money to them, and supported them.

I would have no criticism at all for Democrats who say make Trump a one term President. I have no problem with them actively working to elect Democrats this year and in 2020.

I have a huge problem with Democrats or any other who are working to undermine and destroy and, if possible, remove from office a lawfully elected President of the United States who is accused of no crime.

If you can't see the difference between those two things, well, I can't do anything about that. But do have a pleasant day.

 

[tres borrachos]

I would have no criticism at all for Democrats who say make Trump a one term President. I have no problem with them actively working to elect Democrats this year and in 2020.

I have a huge problem with Democrats or any other who are working to undermine and destroy and, if possible, remove from office a lawfully elected President of the United States who is accused of no crime.

If you can't see the difference between those two things, well, I can't do anything about that. But do have a pleasant day.

Did you have a problem with the Republicans who tried to remove Clinton from office? I know I didn't. Maybe I missed your post expressing your outrage about them doing that.

The Democrats haven't taken any action against Trump that I'm aware of, nor has he been legally accused of any crimes that I'm aware of. So what you have are people who oppose the man who was once one of them. Is that new to you? Because most people have seen this before. Undermine? You mean like the Republicans did to Obama - and I personally applauded them for doing?

 

[Atomic Kid]

Mueller doesn't have just Democrats in his midst. He has staunch, politically active Democrats, several (most?) of whom gave large donations to the Hillary campaign and/or DNC or other Democrats, some who worked actively for the Hillary campaign or who have done legal work for Hillary and/or the Clinton Foundation, etc. Some who have been exposed and forced to resign were actively working to undermine and, if possible, destroy President Trump. And there is nary a Republican supporter to be found on his team.

If the situation was reversed and we had a presumed Democrat appointed to investigate the President but his entire team was made up of Republicans, several (most?) who had contributed to candidate Trump, the RNC, and/or who had done legal work for the campaign or the Trump industries, and there was nary a Democrat to be found, would you see that as a fair and impartial investigation?

That statement in very misleading. First the the people at the top of this investigation, Rosenstein and Mueller, are both Republicans. Secondly there are many more people working on the Mueller team whose identities and political affiliations are not known to the public. Third those that are known have not been what you would call politically active. Fourth Federal regulations prohibit the Justice Department from considering the political affiliation or political contributions of career appointees, including those appointed to the Special Counsel’s Office. So the implication that Mueller is making politically motivated hires is quite a stretch, as he is legally prohibited from considering their political affiliations. What he took into consideration was which people in the DOJ have the experience, expertise and skills needed to conduct such a serious and complex investigation. This is a basically a DOJ all-star team.


Fun Fact : The total amount of Mueller Team members known contributions to the Democratic Party and or it candidates, put all together comes out to being less than half of the $130,000 payed to Stormy Daniels

 

[j-mac]

As I pointed out in another comment to you, the original authority says Mueller is to take over the FBI investigation, and any additional matters that "arose or may arise" directly from that then-ongoing FBI investigation into Russia collusion etc.

So they inherited the FBI file, and kept doing the investigation then ongoing. Was the money laundering stuff part of that file that "arose" from the Russian election inquiry? I don't know, and you don't either.

Second, you guys are relying on regs that require a specific factual statement, but it doesn't dictate the form. Can that factual statement, and/or expansions of the scope, come in regular consultations with the AG? The regs don't prohibit it or require such things to be reduced to memos, so why not? What is required is for the AG to oversee the investigation, which he has done. And the same regs also specifically mention that the regs themselves, such as the requirement for a specific factual statement, create no rights or equities for defendants or targets.

And that was also addressed by judge Ellis, in that Manafort's case didn't "arise" from the collusion mandate. So, team Muller may be out of their jurisdiction.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Chomsky]

The sooner the better we see the IG report the better... The sooner the Mueller investigation is over the better...The sooner Judge Ellis sees the orignial scope of the investigation the better.
I agree the politicization has gone too far but it's not coming all from the right... But political lean, party affiliation, and personal opinion, do not necessarily imply dereliction of duty or criminal behavior in our president. I've seen some anti-Trump peeps attempt to politicize this issue by claiming Putin has Trump in his midst.... (sorry but I couldn't resist)

But you're right too a point, in that it's being politicized everywhere.

And I think most everyone would likely agree that the faster the country gets past this mess, in whatever form that is, the better for everyone. Nobody like or needs this mess.

If Mueller exonerates Trump, I'm good. If Mueller condemns Trump, and he gets forced out of office, I'm good there too. But Mueller if condemns Trump to no legislative effect, then I'm less good even though I accept the constitutional process, and I'll do my best at the ballot box to fix it.

But man, we've got to start acting like Americans firstly, and as political party members secondly.

Democracy's a messy thing, huh?

 

[j-mac]

Sean Hannity has taught his fan base well. But it's a sad day in this country's history when people can't help but repeat the ignorant words of hate from idiots like Rudy Giuliani, Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich and call lifelong public servants by horrific names.

This is also what the Republican Party has sunk to. No wonder Ryan and Gowdy want no part of it anymore.

You'll talk about me, but not to me..what a profile in courage you are...:roll:

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[AlbqOwl]

Did you have a problem with the Republicans who tried to remove Clinton from office? I know I didn't. Maybe I missed your post expressing your outrage about them doing that.

The Democrats haven't taken any action against Trump that I'm aware of, nor has he been legally accused of any crimes that I'm aware of. So what you have are people who oppose the man who was once one of them. Is that new to you? Because most people have seen this before. Undermine? You mean like the Republicans did to Obama - and I personally applauded them for doing?

I had a huge problem with Republicans who tried to remove Clinton from office. And I said so. But he had at least committed crimes. Trump has not been accused of any crime at least while in office. And can you point to any evidence that any Republican was actively working to undermine Obama any time in his eight years? Yes there was talk of 'impeachable crimes' in political rhetoric--such talk that I soundly criticized--but there was no effort to create crimes to blame on Obama. And Obama refused to appoint a special counsel for any of the scandals during his term in office. (Benghazi, the IRS scandal, et al.) (Personal note: I thought he was pretty smart not to appoint a special counsel to investigate him and/or his administration.)

And Obama enjoyed a friendly press for the most part and liberal Democrats were free to speak on college campuses and express their views uninhibited and pretty much unchallenged. Once the American public voted in a Republican house to slow down the Obama agenda--this was in 2010 just after Obama had a super majority in both the House and Senate for his first two years--Obama had a tougher time promoting his agenda, but he was still able to promote it.

The way Obama was treated and the way that President Trump has been treated are glaring in the obvious bias and prejudice against President Trump.

 

[trixare4kids]

Comon', that's not it. It's who he is as a person, and what he does as President ...

In a recent CNN poll, 6 in 10 say things in the country are going well under this president.
That tells me that the majority don't really care who he is as a person, and like what he has done as a president. I think these numbers are bound to climb shortly.

In fact, here might be the reason for the rise:
The Congressional Budget Office has recently reported that our federal government took in $515 billion in April. The suplus beat expectations by forty billion dollars. With outlays only $218 billion, the $190 billion surprlus represents the largest in history. Looks like Trump's tax plan is working. More winning for Trump.

i don't think I can stand it.

 

[j-mac]

Comon', that's not it. It's who he is as a person, and what he does as President ...

He's getting things done despite your contempt

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[AlbqOwl]

That statement in very misleading. First the the people at the top of this investigation, Rosenstein and Mueller, are both Republicans. Secondly there are many more people working on the Mueller team whose identities and political affiliations are not known to the public. Third those that are known have not been what you would call politically active. Fourth Federal regulations prohibit the Justice Department from considering the political affiliation or political contributions of career appointees, including those appointed to the Special Counsel’s Office. So the implication that Mueller is making politically motivated hires is quite a stretch, as he is legally prohibited from considering their political affiliations. What he took into consideration was which people in the DOJ have the experience, expertise and skills needed to conduct such a serious and complex investigation. This is a basically a DOJ all-star team.


Fun Fact : The total amount of Mueller Team members known contributions to the Democratic Party and or it candidates, put all together comes out to being less than half of the $130,000 payed to Stormy Daniels

I will stand by my post. Nobody with any authority has disputed the facts re the makeup of the Mueller team.

 

[post]

In a recent CNN poll, 6 in 10 say things in the country are going well under this president.
That tells me that the majority don't really care who he is as a person, and like what he has done as a president. I think these numbers are bound to climb shortly.

In fact, here might be the reason if they do rise soon:
The Congressional Budget Office has recently reported that our federal government took in $515 billion in April. The suplus beat expectations by forty billion dollars. With outlays only $218 billion, the $190 billion surprlus represents the largest in history. Looks like Trump's tax plan is working. More winning for Trump.

i don't think I can stand it.

The budget deficit does not include the surplus social security collected and spent as general revenue,
among other off budget machinations. The reliable measure is the national debt increase, rising at an average rate of $112 billion per month in the seven months of this fiscal year vs $56 billion per month in the fiscal year ended 09/29/17.
https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

These facts transform your claims into empty Trump boosterisms

 

[trixare4kids]

But you're right too a point, in that it's being politicized everywhere.

And I think most everyone would likely agree that the faster the country gets past this mess, in whatever form that is, the better for everyone. Nobody like or needs this mess.

If Mueller exonerates Trump, I'm good. If Mueller condemns Trump, and he gets forced out of office, I'm good there too. But Mueller if condemns Trump to no legislative effect, then I'm less good even though I accept the constitutional process, and I'll do my best at the ballot box to fix it.

But man, we've got to start acting like Americans firstly, and as political party members secondly.

Democracy's a messy thing, huh?

It worries me the number of people who are rooting for this president to fail. He fails, our country loses. It's not a patriotic gesture to hope he is removed from office by impeachment or a forced resignation. It's not good for the country to harbor such hate for a president because of one's political persuasion and inability to accept that this guy won fairly.

I voted for Clinton twice, and as a lifelong Democrat, a centrist back then, I hated what the Republicans did to him. Now I see the Democrats doing the same thing to Trump. And the Democrats wonder why people like me have left the Democratic Party in droves over the years. Increasingly, they show themselves no longer the party of liberals, but a far left illiberal intolerant party of goofs.

T/Y for the civility. It's a rare occurrence when it comes from this forum regarding this president.

 

[trixare4kids]

The budget deficit does not include the surplus social security collected and spent as general revenue,
among other off budget machinations. The reliable measure is the national debt increase, rising at an average rate of $112 billion per month in the seven months of this fiscal year vs $56 billion per month in the fiscal year ended 09/29/17.
https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

These facts transform your claims into empty Trump boosterisms

April was best month in history for U.S. budget, according to CBO figures
Facts are pesky things for anti-Trump peeps.

The federal government took in a record tax haul in April en route to its biggest-ever monthly budget surplus, the Congressional Budget Office said, as a surging economy left Americans with more money in their paychecks — and this more to pay to Uncle Sam.

All told the government collected $515 billion and spent $297 billion, for a total monthly surplus of $218 billion. That swamped the previous monthly record of $190 billion, set in 2001.

CBO analysts were surprised by the surplus, which was some $40 billion more than they’d guessed at less than a month ago.

Analysts said they’ll have a better idea of what’s behind the surge as more information rolls in, but for now said it looks like individual taxpayers are paying more because they have higher incomes.