The Manafort Indictment: Not Much There, and a Boon for Trump

[SonOfDaedalus]

No, not rubbish. Actual facts.

So quite a retort of actual facts. Care to try again?

Not facts, just allegations. You're throwing around long discredited allegations to distract from a real current investigation that has lead to two indictments and a guilty plea. How many indictments have come of all the stuff you mentioned? The GOP controlled the Judiciary Committee while Obama was in office. They investigated Hillary and came up empty. Why didn't they investigate any of the stuff you mentioned?

 

[FieldTheorist]

There is no strict legal requirement for impeachment, it's basically political. Congress can impeach the president at any time for any reason that they choose to find qualifying.

The likelihood that President Trump wrote down "i am committing treason with Putin, look at me, Donald Trump" and signed it is unlikely. And it's not at all clear that, if we did obtain such a smoking gun, republicans would then be willing to impeach him.

But that gets me to one aspect of this issue that really seems frustrating. If we never get that hard evidence, supplied by President Trump himself, then all the circumstantial evidence in the world would probably be insufficient to convince republicans. President Trump could lick the bottom of Putin's shoe and Hannity would eagerly spin it as some show of strength.

Why is it that getting it in writing is so important...? Normally, people who knowingly engage in such serious crimes are smart enough to refrain from keeping a paper trail. So we are forced to accept all the damage he does to our country and its reputation because republicans are too chicken**** to call a spade a spade?

1.) True, there's no legal burden of proof, but there is an in practice burden of proof. The president needs to have been proven to do something illegal, and that's basically the minimal criterion. Bill Clinton lied under oath, but it was about something irrelevant so Democrats turned their heads the other way. I think for a realistic scenario of an impeachment, you need to have done something illegal and something that matters to the public.

2.) Republicans are partisan, but they just got their tax "reform" (free hand out to the 1%) through, so Trump has just served his purpose. It's not guaranteed, but I think Republicans can live (at least in terms of following their donors) with impeaching Trump now. It doesn't mean they will, but they can proceed now without their donors being angry at them. Republicans hate Trump. They're just looking for a reason to break rank with Trump and politically impale him. If becomes clear that they cannot further serve their donors because of Trump's shenanigans, Trump will be gone.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

1.) True, there's no legal burden of proof, but there is an in practice burden of proof. The president needs to have been proven to do something illegal, and that's basically the minimal criterion. Bill Clinton lied under oath, but it was about something irrelevant so Democrats turned their heads the other way. I think for a realistic scenario of an impeachment, you need to have done something illegal and something that matters to the public.

2.) Republicans are partisan, but they just got their tax "reform" (free hand out to the 1%) through, so Trump has just served his purpose. It's not guaranteed, but I think Republicans can live (at least in terms of following their donors) with impeaching Trump now. It doesn't mean they will, but they can proceed now without their donors being angry at them. Republicans hate Trump. They're just looking for a reason to break rank with Trump and politically impale him.

No they only passed their budget. Their tax plan has yet to be seen.

 

[Nickyjo]

McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, explains why the charges against Manafort will be difficult to prove, and are entirely irrelevant as regards any Trump-Russian "collusion."

Mueller's gone on a fishing expedition, and caught himself an undersized bass.

Ah, but the bass can be used as bait...

 

[humbolt]

Are there any Democrats in recent government that you admire? Are there any GOP politicians you feel are just as sleazy as you feel Harry Reid is?

Just curious.

Sure. And sure. But I should add that there aren't many on either side of the aisle currently that I admire. Our politics is too polarized and poisoned for me to judge exactly which people on either side are truly good people and dedicated public servants. It's difficult to tell them apart when we have two voting blocks on every issue.

 

[eohrnberger]

Not facts, just allegations. You're throwing around long discredited allegations to distract from a real current investigation that has lead to two indictments and a guilty plea. How many indictments have come of all the stuff you mentioned? The GOP controlled the Judiciary Committee while Obama was in office. They investigated Hillary and came up empty. Why didn't they investigate any of the stuff you mentioned?

"long discredited" ? Oh I don't think so.

"Why didn't they investigate?" No idea. I've not heard anything that puts any of these issues to any sort of conclusion.

Oh sure, many here on the left side of the political spectrum wave their hands and dismiss them, but that's not a real conclusion or a real refutation of any substance. That's all still a bunch of hand waving.

 

[Vern]

Oh look, another conservative in over his head resorts to incoherent babble rather address the discussion in an honest and intelligent manner.

my post has nothing to do with who brought up Hillary. It has to do with your obedient belief that she "her own problems to deal with, and it appears they are growing rather than shrinking."

Oh humbolt, I'm not responding to you because you brought up Hillary. I'm responding to you because you obediently parroted the conservative narrative that "Hillary has legal issues and they're getting worse"..

But, but Vern, I didn't bring up Hillary.

Now humbolt, try to focus. I'm not posting "you brought up Hillary". I'm responding to the fact that you posted the obedient conservative narrative that she has "her own problems to deal with, and it appears they are growing rather than shrinking." Again, you've confirmed that I was wrong when I thought you were smarter than the other conservatives who fell for the "quick, spew a bunch of stories about Hillary that have zero merit to deflect from the impending indictments involving the Trump campaign and collusion". You've proven you're not smart. Now you're proving you're also dishonest by responding to posts I've not posted.

 

[lurchadams]

Sure. And sure. But I should add that there aren't many on either side of the aisle currently that I admire. Our politics is too polarized and poisoned for me to judge exactly which people on either side are truly good people and dedicated public servants. It's difficult to tell them apart when we have two voting blocks on every issue.

Do you think putting limits on and making more transparent money in politics would mitigate some of the poison?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

"long discredited" ? Oh I don't think so.

"Why didn't they investigate?" No idea. I've not heard anything that puts any of these issues to any sort of conclusion.

Oh sure, many here on the left side of the political spectrum wave their hands and dismiss them, but that's not a real conclusion or a real refutation of any substance. That's all still a bunch of hand waving.

1. Uranium One: No uranium can be exported to Russia. Do you deny this?

2. Clinton Foundation: It's a charity. Clinton's don't earn a salary. Do you deny this?

 

[humbolt]

Oh look, another conservative in over his head resorts to incoherent babble rather address the discussion in an honest and intelligent manner.





Now humbolt, try to focus. I'm not posting "you brought up Hillary". I'm responding to the fact that you posted the obedient conservative narrative that she has "her own problems to deal with, and it appears they are growing rather than shrinking." Again, you've confirmed that I was wrong when I thought you were smarter than the other conservatives who fell for the "quick, spew a bunch of stories about Hillary that have zero merit to deflect from the impending indictments involving the Trump campaign and collusion". You've proven you're not smart. Now you're proving you're also dishonest by responding to posts I've not posted.

Uh huh. Everything I've said is true, and everything you've said is false. Hope that clears it up for ya.

 

[beefheart]

Trump could set a new record...

 

[humbolt]

Do you think putting limits on and making more transparent money in politics would mitigate some of the poison?

Probably, but I think the change in our politics starts with the public at large.

 

[Vern]

Uh huh. Everything I've said is true, and everything you've said is false. Hope that clears it up for ya.

well at least your latest not as whiny and dishonest as your "wah wah stop accusing me of bringing up Hillary" posts.

 

[eohrnberger]

1. Uranium One: No uranium can be exported to Russia. Do you deny this?

US Uranium already has been shipped overseas to designations unknown.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal - New York Times

Once in Western Europe or Japan who knows where it'll end up. “to the best of our knowledge” could also very well be interpreted as 'whatever the documentation says', meaning next to nothing.

2. Clinton Foundation: It's a charity. Clinton's don't earn a salary. Do you deny this?

At some point appointed to a do nothing board of directors position, drawn a huge salary. Yeah, easy enough to dodge. Maybe haven't yet, doesn't mean couldn't in the future. And really funny, how the Russian oligarchs drop millions there, and magically the Obama admin approves the deal.

I still haven't got a satisfactory answer as to why agreeing to give Russia, an international challenger to US interests, control over some 20% of the US uranium is in the nation's best interests. How is such a deal in the best interests of the USA? Especially when Democrats, now, claim Russia is so evil as it is.

Romney had it right, and the Democrats all laughed at him. Not laughing so much now. Obama admin, Hillary, all been duped by the Russians in this deal.

 

[Vern]

It where that oppo research, some of it debunked and some not yet debunked, wandered, where it all showed up, and who all used it for what.

See how in your world everything is either " debunked" and "not yet debunked'. Besides the fact that nothing has been debunked, the dossier is quite credible.

What’s more, the Steele dossier itself has been deemed credible at the highest levels of the US intelligence community, to the point where both Presidents Obama and Trump were briefed on it before its existence was made public. Independent intelligence experts have pointed out that many of its claims — though not the pee tape — have been confirmed by subsequent investigations.

“Steele and his company appear serious and credible,” John Sipher, a 30-year veteran of the CIA, wrote at Slate in September. “Well before any public knowledge of these events, the [Steele dossier] identified multiple elements of the Russian operation including a cyber campaign, leaked documents related to Hillary Clinton, and meetings with Paul Manafort and other Trump affiliates to reportedly discuss the receipt of stolen documents.”

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/27/16552458/trump-russia-clinton-steele-cambridge-analytica

oh and before you post "wah wah Vox", you need to explain why the GOP platform on Ukraine was changed as predicted

"Parts of the dossier have been stood up and in places it looks prophetic. One Steele memo says the Kremlin was behind the hacking of DNC emails, claiming these were released via WikiLeaks for reasons of “plausible deniability”. In return, Trump agreed to “sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine” as a campaign issue and to raise “US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and eastern Europe” to deflect attention.

This is precisely what happened at the Republican National Convention last July, when language on the US’s commitment to Ukraine was mysteriously softened. Meanwhile, in a series of tweets, Trump questioned whether US allies were paying enough into Nato coffers.
"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-about-alleged-links-between-trump-and-russia

You really need to stop getting your "facts" from Hannity. He's lying to you. You even think "unmasking" is illegal.

 

[polgara]

It's early days, but this is beginning to have the look and feel of the Ken Starr investigation of the Clintons that went way afield of its initial intent, had grandiose visions of taking down a President, and resulted in the Republicans over playing their hand and becoming politically irrelevant for over a decade when the voters banished them for wasting the country's time and money on a political witch hunt.

If there are true crimes that have been committed, take the buggers down. If not, if it's just dirty politics as usual and sore losers seeking revenge, it will cost the Democrats dearly.

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

:agree: It's a little early to draw any conclusions based on what was presented today, IMO, so I'm not going to bother doing that right now. If the Dems want to go out and scream at the sky on November 8, I'll wait to see how that goes, too. :mrgreen: In the meantime, life goes on.......

 

[Linc]

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

:agree: It's a little early to draw any conclusions based on what was presented today, IMO, so I'm not going to bother doing that right now. If the Dems want to go out and scream at the sky on November 8, I'll wait to see how that goes, too. :mrgreen: In the meantime, life goes on.......

It's never too late for GOP hacks to draw conclusions about ... But Hillary !!!

 

[Linc]

It's early days, but this is beginning to have the look and feel of the Ken Starr investigation of the Clintons that went way afield of its initial intent, had grandiose visions of taking down a President, and resulted in the Republicans over playing their hand and becoming politically irrelevant for over a decade when the voters banished them for wasting the country's time and money on a political witch hunt.

If there are true crimes that have been committed, take the buggers down. If not, if it's just dirty politics as usual and sore losers seeking revenge, it will cost the Democrats dearly.

You've obviously forgotten which partie was in power during the decade you speak of ...

 

[Vern]

US Uranium already has been shipped overseas to designations unknown.

again, you really need to stop getting your "facts" from Hannity. He's lying to you.

First, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses in Wyoming*from Uranium One to the Russian company. The NRC announced it approved the transfer on Nov. 24, 2010. But, as the NRC explained at the time, “no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”

The Facts on Uranium One - FactCheck.org

Oh no, is this the incontrovertible evidence Hannity told you about?

In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

er uh eorhn, Canada and America are not "overseas" or "designations unknown".

 

[beefheart]

Has anyone noticed that not one single GOP senator or representative has appeared on any cable news channel since the Papadopolous news?

Hmmmm

 

[Linc]

Has anyone noticed that not one single GOP senator or representative has appeared on any cable news channel since the Papadopolous news? Hmmmm

NAt, Nuclear Apocalyptic trump, is worse than the Yellowstone Caldera going off, which is overdue. trump is certainly part of the 'ring of fire' ...

 

[beefheart]

NAt, Nuclear Apocalyptic trump, is worse than the Yellowstone Caldera going off, which is overdue. trump is certainly part of the 'ring of fire' ...

One of our idiots Trent Franks was on the radio after Manafort but before Papa, same old scripted crap...

They must still be writing the post Papa script....

 

[eohrnberger]

again, you really need to stop getting your "facts" from Hannity. He's lying to you.

First, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses in Wyoming*from Uranium One to the Russian company. The NRC announced it approved the transfer on Nov. 24, 2010. But, as the NRC explained at the time, “no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”

The Facts on Uranium One - FactCheck.org

Oh no, is this the incontrovertible evidence Hannity told you about?

In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

er uh eorhn, Canada and America are not "overseas" or "designations unknown".

Geez Vern. You've taken cherry picking to the professional partisan level.

As cited in my post:

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal - New York Times

"A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."

Western Europe and Japan IS overseas. You are dismissed. Dismissed with prejudice.

 

[Linc]

One of our idiots Trent Franks was on the radio after Manafort but before Papa, same old scripted crap... They must still be writing the post Papa script....

Lawrence is burying the trump crime syndicate right now. TURNOUT, TURNOUT, TURNOUT ........

 

[Vern]

Geez Vern. You've taken cherry picking to the professional partisan level.

As cited in my post:

"A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."

Western Europe and Japan IS overseas. You are dismissed. Dismissed with prejudice.

oooo eohrn, you should have kept pretending to have me on ignore. Uranium One has mines all over the world. Maybe Donna was referring to other mines because the uranium refined in Canada comes back to America. Or it was sent to other enrichment plants for processing. We don't produce enough for our uses so we have to import it. we import 92% of what we use

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=2150

But eorhn, lets pretend Donna is right and or she's saying American uranium has ended up in Japan and Western Europe. You said "designations unknown". that's just false. And don't forget, I called you out for your false narratives concerning the Steel Dossier. Oh fyi, even your conservative masters at Fox say unmasking is legal

What is 'unmasking?' Susan Rice allegedly sought names of Trump associates under surveillance | Fox News

and also the illegal unmasking.