Mueller Probe has Cost $0.

[veritas1]

Agreed. So what?

So, why has the left been droning on about Manafort for a year or more? Because they think he's some sort of avenue to "getting" Trump.

 

[veritas1]

Ah, so you too cannot stand Trump and what his republican allies have done? Good to know.

Blahblahblahbalh womppity wompwomp.

You can deny reality all you'd like. It's really fun to watch.

Just like watching Trump and his crime family coming apart at the seams is fun to watch.

Yay! Fun! Who doesn't love fun?

No, I've been happy with Trump's performance. Such a relief from eight years of apologizing and empty suitism. That you support any measure, legal or extra legal to get Trump, says much.

 

[JasperL]

Manafort is in no position and Trump could never get rid of Mueller without the left hyperventilating that he was "hiding" something. In the end, Mueller will attempt to impugn and sully Trump but he will present NO concrete evidence of any crime. Wait and see.

You're hilarious. You really should know some basic facts before making fact-based arguments. Manafort sued twice to declare the appointment invalid and lost twice, in front of two different federal judges.

#1 - https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/27/paul-manafort-civil-suit-dismissed-557465
#2 - https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/judge-rejects-challenge-676814

I suspect there's more but the point is Manafort's team tried your argument and it failed, repeatedly.

 

[veritas1]

You're hilarious. You really should know some basic facts before making fact-based arguments. Manafort sued twice to declare the appointment invalid and lost twice, in front of two different federal judges.

#1 - https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/27/paul-manafort-civil-suit-dismissed-557465
#2 - https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/judge-rejects-challenge-676814

I suspect there's more but the point is Manafort's team tried your argument and it failed, repeatedly.

So what? Judges can and do make mistakes. They are also subject to various biases. By your logic, you must support the Dred Scott decision.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

No, I've been happy with Trump's performance. Such a relief from eight years of apologizing and empty suitism. That you support any measure, legal or extra legal to get Trump, says much.

LOL! But of course you're happy with the unprecedented and historic corruption and incompetency.

That you support a mobbed-up lifelong conman says much.

Why do you hate America?

 

[veritas1]

OK, so you misstated what happened, and I presume are acknowledging you got it wrong on both counts, and are now moving the goal posts. Noted.

But, yes, when the crime doesn't have a relationship to the core investigation, one appropriate thing for the SC to do is refer it to career DoJ, which happened. That is not a problem.

So, I thought Podesta had gotten immunity. BFD. Speaking of the "core" investigation, the things Manafort is charged with have zero to do with Trump or collusion. Seems that should have been referred to the DOJ as well.

 

[veritas1]

LOL! But of course you're happy with the unprecedented and historic corruption and incompetency.

That you support a mobbed-up lifelong conman says much.

Why do you hate America?

Trump has been taking a hatchet to liberal f-ups. That's why he is so hated by people just like you. Destroying liberalism is like destroying a disease. It is necessary for long term survival.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Trump has been taking a hatchet to liberal f-ups. That's why he is so hated by people just like you. Destroying liberalism is like destroying a disease. It is necessary for long term survival.

LOL! He's held in disdain by every rational, sober adult.

Why do you hate America?

 

[veritas1]

LOL! He's held in disdain by every rational, sober adult.

Why do you hate America?

You are neither rational nor sober so have no basis upon which to make such a comment.

 

[JasperL]

So what? Judges can and do make mistakes. They are also subject to various biases. By your logic, you must support the Dred Scott decision.

No, by my standard you're ignorant of basic facts in this mess because you apparently didn't know Manafort had twice sued to invalidate Mueller's appointment, and/or authority to bring charges.

I was also pointing out that where it counts, in court, with qualified people tasked to make judgments about the constitutionality of an action, your argument has been summarily rejected. Doesn't mean it's correct, but the evidence is NOT in your favor.

 

[veritas1]

No, by my standard you're ignorant of basic facts in this mess because you apparently didn't know Manafort had twice sued to invalidate Mueller's appointment, and/or authority to bring charges.

I was also pointing out that where it counts, in court, with qualified people tasked to make judgments about the constitutionality of an action, your argument has been summarily rejected. Doesn't mean it's correct, but the evidence is NOT in your favor.

"Doesn't mean it's correct." That's the entire point. Whether I recalled every legal action taken by Manafort in this mess, is not relevant to whether Mueller's appointment is actually Constitutional.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

You are neither rational nor sober so have no basis upon which to make such a comment.

LOL! The ironic thing is, you simply wouldn't know.

Too good.

Pity that you hate America.

 

[Divine_Wind]

So, why has the left been droning on about Manafort for a year or more? Because they think he's some sort of avenue to "getting" Trump.

I give up. Why? Possibly. What does that have to do with the price of wheat in Kansas...or the claim Mueller has overstepped his boundaries?

 

[veritas1]

I give up. Why? Possibly. What does that have to do with the price of wheat in Kansas...or the claim Mueller has overstepped his boundaries?

We've heard about Manafort and his tax and loan problems for over a year yet they have nothing to do with the issue Mueller was supposed to look at. Mueller is either incompetent, which I doubt, or has nothing at all on Trump and has to look like he's accomplishing something.

 

[veritas1]

LOL! The ironic thing is, you simply wouldn't know.

Too good.

Pity that you hate America.

Not knowing has never stopped you from flapping your gums in here.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Not knowing has never stopped you from flapping your gums in here.

LOL! It's OK that your arguments are based in dishonesty and vapor and when they were dismantled and shown to be bull****, you had no rational rebuttal. 'twas ever thus.

Thanks for the laughs. Bummer that you hate America to its core.

 

[JasperL]

So, I thought Podesta had gotten immunity. BFD. Speaking of the "core" investigation, the things Manafort is charged with have zero to do with Trump or collusion. Seems that should have been referred to the DOJ as well.

We don't know that, not yet, and if Manafort was a part of any 'collusion' case, or potentially was a part, then it would be illogical to give up the leverage of other crimes. Certainly following the money is something EVERY prosecutor would do as sort of step 1 or 2 of 50 steps. If someone like Manafort is suspected to have 'colluded' with Russia on the campaign, the next question is 'why' and the next question is 'is that why a financial payoff?' which would be relevant to Manafort because he was deeply in debt to Russian thugs.

And if by following the money they uncover other crimes, use them to exert pressure. I'm 100% positive that's how it would work in every other prosecution, because it's legitimate and often effective.

 

[veritas1]

LOL! It's OK that your arguments are based in dishonesty and vapor and when they were dismantled and shown to be bull****, you had no rational rebuttal. 'twas ever thus.

Thanks for the laughs. Bummer that you hate America to its core.

You've never debunked anything other than the passing and ever so brief thought that maybe you weren't a classically arrogant, full of crap, big mouth liberal. I don't hate America, just people like you who are the actual agents of its demise. I won't thank you for the laughs because you aren't funny, just tragic.

 

[Divine_Wind]

We've heard about Manafort and his tax and loan problems for over a year yet they have nothing to do with the issue Mueller was supposed to look at. Mueller is either incompetent, which I doubt, or has nothing at all on Trump and has to look like he's accomplishing something.

So? What does that have to do with your previous claims and Mueller's mission?:

Mueller's purpose was to investigate Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, not unrelated crimes by Manafort, Flynn or anyone else. Mueller and his merry band of Democrat donors are simply out of control and have been for quite a while.

Manafort is not Trump nor is anything Manafort has been charged with have anything to do with Russian interference in the election.

 

[JasperL]

"Doesn't mean it's correct." That's the entire point. Whether I recalled every legal action taken by Manafort in this mess, is not relevant to whether Mueller's appointment is actually Constitutional.

Yeah, OK, you can wake me up when Mueller's appointment is rejected. Till then I'll simply note that the argument you're making has been tried and rejected, twice, in court, including by Judge Ellis who was obviously predisposed (or at least amenable) to challenging the authority of the SC.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

You've never debunked anything other than the passing and ever so brief thought that maybe you weren't a classically arrogant, full of crap, big mouth liberal. I don't hate America, just people like you who are the actual agents of its demise. I won't thank you for the laughs because you aren't funny, just tragic.

I understand your desperate need to pretend that's the case, but you simply have no grasp on reality. You are the classic Know-Nothing crime-supporting conservative, completely in over his head and flailing about, desperately trying to make sense of things you don't understand and don't want to understand.

It's sad that you hate America so much you want to see it destroyed.

 

[veritas1]

Yeah, OK, you can wake me up when Mueller's appointment is rejected. Till then I'll simply note that the argument you're making has been tried and rejected, twice, in court, including by Judge Ellis who was obviously predisposed (or at least amenable) to challenging the authority of the SC.

Justices make mistakes. Isn't that what we've heard endlessly about Citizens United? We could name lots of other cases. I wouldn't be at all surprised that judges simply don't want to open the can of worms, and be on record for, the associated problems that declaring Mueller's appointment unconstitutional would cause.

 

[veritas1]

I understand your desperate need to pretend that's the case, but you simply have no grasp on reality. You are the classic Know-Nothing crime-supporting conservative, completely in over his head and flailing about, desperately trying to make sense of things you don't understand and don't want to understand.

It's sad that you hate America so much you want to see it destroyed.

I understand you and people like you. Been watching your type for 50 years. You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I understand you and people like you. Been watching your type for 50 years. You aren't fooling anyone.

What's his type and those of people like him? Why are you watching them?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I understand you and people like you. Been watching your type for 50 years. You aren't fooling anyone.

Pfffft. Not even remotely interested in your fantasy life.

Still, it's sad that you hate this country and want to destroy it.