TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#6,101
#6,101
can't they bring the charges as separate matters against Trump.

Supposedly the obstruction of justice is black and white. can't they bring those charges, get him on trial for that and carry on with the rest? why does that "open and shut" case have to wait on the rest?
 
#6,103
#6,103
volinbham said:
anything is possible but these threads are full of people who bought the collusion thing hook, line and sinker - haven't seen any admit they got that one wrong.

plenty have bought the obstruction of justice narrative but that one too is looking weak.
Click to expand...

you know as well as I do that the usual suspects are going to cry "foul" no matter what the outcome of this investigation is
 
#6,104
#6,104
OuterBanksVol said:
Last week's news dude. It could mean alot... including the obvious fact that since Mueller seemingly cannot indict the standing President, he is not technically a target.
Click to expand...

Yeah that must be it. 😂

And no this is today’s news. Last weeks news was Muellers team stating it. This is Rosenstein. That’s what some people call corroborating information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,106
#6,106
OuterBanksVol said:
Last week's news dude. It could mean alot... including the obvious fact that since Mueller seemingly cannot indict the standing President, he is not technically a target.
Click to expand...

It's not last week's news - it's new news.

Rosenstein told Trump last week but that was just reported today.

This is a more recent confirmation than what was reported several weeks ago that Mueller told Trumps attorneys he wasn't a target at that time.
 
#6,107
#6,107
LouderVol said:
can't they bring the charges as separate matters against Trump.

Supposedly the obstruction of justice is black and white. can't they bring those charges, get him on trial for that and carry on with the rest? why does that "open and shut" case have to wait on the rest?
Click to expand...

I believe Rosenstein's directive or the statute says Mueller is to produce *A* report to Rosenstein. However, there are also interim updates enumerated... Mueller could provide an "update" on the OOJ issue priorf to issuing the final report.
 
#6,108
#6,108
OuterBanksVol said:
I believe Rosenstein's directive or the statute says Mueller is to produce *A* report to Rosenstein. However, there are also interim updates enumerated... Mueller could provide an "update" on the OOJ issue priorf to issuing the final report.
Click to expand...

He's already indicted people and brought charges.

Louder is correct that he could bring things separately (we've already seen him do it).

IOW - if the case could be made now for obstruction he could bring it and continue the larger investigation.
 
#6,109
#6,109
volinbham said:
It's not last week's news - it's new news.

Rosenstein told Trump last week but that was just reported today.

This is a more recent confirmation than what was reported several weeks ago that Mueller told Trumps attorneys he wasn't a target at that time.
Click to expand...

Ahh, you're right. Funny thing about this...

"Rosenstein, who brought up the Mueller probe himself, offered the assurance during a meeting with Trump at the White House last Thursday, a development that helped tamp down the president’s desire to remove Rosenstein or Mueller, the people said."
 
#6,110
#6,110
OuterBanksVol said:
Ahh, you're right. Funny thing about this...

"Rosenstein, who brought up the Mueller probe himself, offered the assurance during a meeting with Trump at the White House last Thursday, a development that helped tamp down the president’s desire to remove Rosenstein or Mueller, the people said."
Click to expand...

You're grasping at straws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,111
#6,111
OuterBanksVol said:
Ahh, you're right. Funny thing about this...

"Rosenstein, who brought up the Mueller probe himself, offered the assurance during a meeting with Trump at the White House last Thursday, a development that helped tamp down the president’s desire to remove Rosenstein or Mueller, the people said."
Click to expand...

Keep the dream alive man. 👊
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,114
#6,114
Mick said:
Manafort investigated as ‘back channel’ to Russia, US lawyer Says | National | heraldcourier.com

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s interest in former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort stemmed in part from his suspected role as a “back channel” between the campaign and Russians intent on meddling in the election, a Justice Department lawyer told a judge.
Click to expand...

From the article they are arguing why Mueller was justified in sweeping up Manafort in the probe - they are not saying they found evidence he served as a back channel.

“He had long-standing ties to Russia-backed politicians,” Dreeben told Jackson. “Did they provide back channels to Russia? Investigators will naturally look at those things.”
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,115
#6,115
Mick said:
Manafort investigated as ‘back channel’ to Russia, US lawyer Says | National | heraldcourier.com

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s interest in former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort stemmed in part from his suspected role as a “back channel” between the campaign and Russians intent on meddling in the election, a Justice Department lawyer told a judge.
Click to expand...

So the article basically states they suspected he was a back channel and then stumbled into the financial stuff which Manafort’s attorneys claim is out of scope.

This is not a new claim of Manafort being a back channel. It’s the prosecutors statement on why they focused on him.

Defense attorney Kevin Downing argued anew to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington that even Mueller’s appointment order permitting him to probe “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” wouldn’t cover the political consulting work Manafort did in Ukraine for a decade.

But Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben said prosecutors were justified in investigating Manafort because he had served as Trump’s campaign chairman.
Click to expand...
 
#6,117
#6,117
volinbham said:
From the article they are arguing why Mueller was justified in sweeping up Manafort in the probe - they are not saying they found evidence he served as a back channel.
Click to expand...

Its the counter argument to Manafort's argument that it was outside the scope which by making the argument in court, Mueller's team suggest they have collaborating information and facts to back up that claim.
 
#6,118
#6,118
Mick said:
Its the counter argument to Manafort's argument that it was outside the scope which by making the argument in court, Mueller's team suggest they have collaborating information and facts to back up that claim.
Click to expand...

They suggest no such thing in the article you linked.

And Judge Jackson has yet to rule on whether the financial findings are in scope or not yet. That was stated in the article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,119
#6,119
Mick said:
Its the counter argument to Manafort's argument that it was outside the scope which by making the argument in court, Mueller's team suggest they have collaborating information and facts to back up that claim.
Click to expand...

Yes I get it's the counter argument but it's not the subject of the charges.

It's how they justify nailing him on something else.

He knew a bunch of Russian politicians - we'll say that means he could have been a back channel so we'll go through everything he's done for the last decade or so and nail him with whatever we can find.

Tells us virtually nothing about the collusion charge. The fact he wasn't charged with being a back channel tells us more. The fact none of the charges against him are related to the collusion allegation also tells us more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,121
#6,121
NorthDallas40 said:
They suggest no such thing in the article you linked.

And Judge Jackson has yet to rule on whether the financial findings are in scope or not yet. That was stated in the article.
Click to expand...

You seem caught up on the hearing except Mueller's team argued a "suspected back channel" link between Trump and Russia through manafort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,122
#6,122
Mick said:
You seem caught up on the hearing except Mueller's team argued a "suspected back channel" link between Trump and Russia through manafort.
Click to expand...

And they found nothing supporting their suspicion. There are no charges against him relating to this suspicion and no court filings claiming support for this suspicion. But they did find old financial dealings that Manafort's team claim are out of scope. Two of us have stated this back to you now in about 6 posts and got this information from the article you linked.
 
#6,123
#6,123
NorthDallas40 said:
And they found nothing supporting their suspicion. There are no charges against him relating to this suspicion and no court filings claiming support for this suspicion. But they did find old financial dealings that Manafort's team claim are out of scope. Two of us have stated this back to you now in about 6 posts and got this information from the article you linked.
Click to expand...


Don't state s**t like that as fact. You have no idea what Mueller has. So sit back and enjoy the show. It will help you to realize just how little you actually know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,124
#6,124
Mick said:
Don't state s**t like that as fact. You have no idea what Mueller has. So sit back and enjoy the show. It will help you to realize just how little you actually know.
Click to expand...

You are clueless on this and cannot simply read the damn article you linked. The prosecution STATED their suspicion based on Manafort’s past dealings. Using that basis they found the financial dealings. They have no indictments related to this suspicion. That’s a damn fact! You desperately want that suspicion to be true and have ZERO evidence stating it is!! Also a fact!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,125
#6,125
Mick said:
You seem caught up on the hearing except Mueller's team argued a "suspected back channel" link between Trump and Russia through manafort.
Click to expand...

Back channels are normal and legal.

Now of course, unless there’s some sort of criminal espionage...which I know you are praying happened.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top