[link] A federal grand jury in Washington, DC, on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.... Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Quests. | Journs. | Gen. | News | Quiz | Links | TV | Music | Movies | Games | Sports | Sug. | Lit. | Jokes | Artcls. | Newb | O.S.
First charges filed in Mueller probe

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next (showing 51-75 of 114)

Back to Thread List
Bottom Last Post

18 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 1:35:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
Icky, I'd need a wash after the golden shower I think.

Just read the document, sounds interesting. seems he got some encouragement from higher ups in the campaign.

My guess is muller has those e-mails at this point.

also as it was clearly stated multiple times in the document this document is not exhaustive of the facts.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 2:52:19 PM EST (GMT-5)
It sure looks like he helped orchestrate that Trump Tower meeting with Jr, Jared, Manafort, and the Russians.

And implied in the timeline of events laid out in that plea deal is the fact that the Trump campaign knew as far back as *April 2016* that the Russians had hacked the DNC and stolen all those emails. Yet they didn't alert the FBI. Instead, they tried to profit from it, politically.
And Trump, during the campaign (and even after), kept downplaying the idea that it was Russia that got those emails and gave them to WikiLeaks. Claiming it could have been a different foreign government, or even just "some 400 lb guy sitting on his bed." Even though they had known since at least two months before they were released that it was definitely Russia.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 3:24:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Sunday 10/29/17 - 10:51:47 PM CowDung wrote:
Aren't your #1 and #2 in disagreement?


I'm on my phone and don't really have the patience to explain it to you and then deal with the resulting nonsensical arguments, but no.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 3:29:53 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Monday 10/30/17 - 3:24:12 PM Courtbebe wrote:
I'm on my phone and don't really have the patience to explain it to you and then deal with the resulting nonsensical arguments, but no.


I think Bird gave a scenario where they would not be in conflict.

On Sunday 10/29/17 - 11:45:47 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Well off the top of my head, as a layman, it could take away some leverage a prosecutor/investigator might have. For example, assume tomorrow's indictment is Flynn Jr., and part of the logic behind indicting him early is to get Flynn Sr. to cooperate ("tell us X and we might be able to keep your kid out of quite so much trouble"). Pardon the son, and the father no longer has that big, compelling reason to cooperate or cut a deal. The prosecutor would have to find other leverage.

17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 3:34:08 PM EST (GMT-5)
Yeah, but I'm not an attorney, and I'm sure there are way more situations than just the incredibly specific one I could think of.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 3:38:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Monday 10/30/17 - 3:34:08 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Yeah, but I'm not an attorney, and I'm sure there are way more situations than just the incredibly specific one I could think of.


I don't need an exhaustive list, your example provided an explanation- - I was thinking only in terms of a single person...
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 3:40:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Monday 10/30/17 - 1:35:09 PM Rik_Khaos wrote:
seems he got some encouragement from higher ups in the campaign. My guess is muller has those e-mails at this point. also as it was clearly stated multiple times in the document this document is not exhaustive of the facts.


Well if they didn't have those emails before, I'm sure they do now, since he's cooperating.

This (from the footnote on pg. 8)



is Manafort. I remember his spokesperson provided that exact quote (well, the first half) to either NYT or Washington Post earlier this year, trying to make it look like he was approached by someone trying to get Trump to meet with Russians, but of COURSE he refused.
(They left off the 2nd half that makes it clear he just didn't want to get caught)
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 3:50:34 PM EST (GMT-5)
Looks like Tony Podesta is worried about this investigation as well...

"TONY PODESTA, CLINTON CAMPAIGN MANAGER'S BROTHER, QUITS LOBBYING GROUP AMID MUELLER'S RUSSIA PROBE"

http://www.newsweek.com/tony-podest...
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 3:53:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
That is unsurprising. His name came out a week ago, maybe two? in connection with the investigation.

He runs a big lobbying group that I'm pretty sure Manafort hired to do some of the Ukraine work. If Manafort and Gates got nailed for FARA violations, failure to disclose, etc., then I wouldn't be surprised if that's the shape the Tony Podesta stuff takes, too. And possible money laundering, considering how crooked the people they were dealing with in Ukraine were.

(I was about to ask you if you pulled that headline from Drudge or something, then I clicked the link. God damn, Newsweek, stop formatting like a sh*tty tabloid. )
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 4:05:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
See I give a more generous reading to that footnote. But admitted it may make less sence in context.

I read it as someone low level should communicate that day isn’t doing the meetings, not that someone low level should do the meetings.

I read it this way because if they didn’t want someone high level talking to the Russians why would kushner, Manafort, and djt jr then take a meeting with Russians.

The only person higher at that point is trump himself. I guess time line is a consideration on that as well. If that e-mail is post trump tower meeting the maybe they have someone lower level running point.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 4:21:55 PM EST (GMT-5)
It could mean that...but in the paragraphs immediately following, they talk about a "campaign supervisor" (don't know who that is, but given the timing, maybe Lewandowski?) encouraging Papadopoulos and another foreign policy adviser to make the Russia trip themselves. I think they would have been considered sufficiently "low-level."


How incredibly, ridiculously stupid is Paul Manafort, btw? I mean to have all these shady deals, to KNOW you've been laundering money for at least a decade (probably longer), and have so far gotten away with it...and then you sign on to manage the campaign of a major party presidential candidate?? Why would you not think everything you did from that point on would be subject to even more scrutiny? Why expose yourself like that?
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 4:33:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
Also, was there no vetting at all with the trump campaign?

Was the trump team made aware that maybe they want to go another way with a campaign manager to manage the delegate process?

Or was it so dire that Manafort was all the could get.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 4:39:43 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Monday 10/30/17 - 4:33:36 PM Rik_Khaos wrote:
Or was it so dire that Manafort was all the could get.


There is probably a lot of truth to this. I'm not sure that many would want to stake their reputation on the success of a Trump campaign...



17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 4:47:11 PM EST (GMT-5)
I mean, people thought it was crazy at the time, too. Manafort had been a name in D.C. lobbying for decades, the guy used to work with Roger Stone, etc. Their firm worked on the 1980 Reagan campaign, and then they did work for actual warlords and dictators all over the world. Just whoever would pay them the most, with no regard for how crooked or awful they were. Nothing illegal, but they were notorious.

I had the same question (how did he get involved), and after reading some stuff, it seems like Roger Stone recommended him to Trump. Which, honestly, ought to be your first clue that you should NOT do something, or hire someone.
And then Tom Barrack (billionaire Trump friend/donor) apparently sold them on Manafort's "familiarity with the delegate process" (which seems like a pretty thin claim, considering he hadn't been active in party politics in years).
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 4:50:14 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Monday 10/30/17 - 4:33:36 PM Rik_Khaos wrote:
Or was it so dire that Manafort was all the could get.
On Monday 10/30/17 - 4:39:43 PM CowDung wrote:
There is probably a lot of truth to this. I'm not sure that many would want to stake their reputation on the success of a Trump campaign...

If it had been early in the primaries, you might have a point here. But by the time Manafort was made campaign manager, Trump either had the nomination already clinched, or very nearly. Once it was clear he was going to be the nominee, LOTS of republicans lined up behind him.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 4:58:07 PM EST (GMT-5)
Even if they knew he'd win the nomination, nobody thought he'd actually have a chance to get elected against the Hillary political machine. I really don't recall republicans clamoring to line up behind Trump- - maybe a bunch of reluctant endorsements rather than enthusiastic support...

17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 4:59:59 PM EST (GMT-5)
This is the timeline I'm reading, btw
Sure doesn't look like Manafort was a nobody/last resort in Trump's eyes. They have connections going back to the '80s.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 5:15:31 PM EST (GMT-5)
It is hilarious to watch Trump people try to distance the campaign from Manafort, though.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 5:22:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
Fair enough.

So they drop these indictments today. They don’t touch on anything campaign wise for Manafort or Gates. Is there any incentive to withhold charges of false statements about the campaign they may have made during the investigation?

Who does it have to get to before trump would issue pardons, his children?

Plus I wonder if in the end mueller states that trump is an unindicted co-conspirator.

Just saw info that might suggest the reason that there is a gap between July and October regarding popadopolis isThe special counsel asked that his initial appearance not be entered because his willingness to be a proactive cooperated. So he may have been wearing a wire and recoding conversation for the past few months.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 5:23:57 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Monday 10/30/17 - 5:15:31 PM birdsong4j wrote:
It is hilarious to watch Trump people try to distance the campaign from Manafort, though.


I mean how do you try to pretend the drating campaign chairman was just tangentially involved.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 6:17:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
Also I enjoy that senators and congress people are dancing around out right saying collusion when asked.

You don’t have to finess everthing, it’s ok to say, “It looks bad, but I don’t know exactly where it leaves us.”

17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 6:20:44 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Monday 10/30/17 - 4:33:36 PM Rik_Khaos wrote:
Also, was there no vetting at all with the trump campaign?


I'm sure wallet biopsies were common, once you got above the level of "useful idiot".
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 6:34:14 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Monday 10/30/17 - 5:22:30 PM Rik_Khaos wrote:
stuff

I think we are still a good ways away from anything that touches Trump personally. This is the beginning, not the end. But if it gets deeper, the administration probably will try to claim he didn't know anything, just like Nixon.

I would think no pardons unless it gets to Jared or Jr. level. He might not be able to help himself at that point, because family.

I think that is almost definitely true of Papadopoulos. Maybe not literally wearing a wire, but using him to catch other people in incriminating statements or outright lies (or attempts to help him obstruct the investigation)? Yeah, it makes sense. You don't show all your cards at once, right away.

Re: Manafort/Gates, the indictment is probably only what they think they can prove 100% as of today. I think there's still a lot of digging to do re: campaign.
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 6:58:15 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Monday 10/30/17 - 6:34:14 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Re: Manafort/Gates, the indictment is probably only what they think they can prove 100% as of today. I think there's still a lot of digging to do re: campaign.


This. There's no guarantee that Manafort will be indicted for any actions he took as campaign chairman, but the fact that those indictments haven't happened yet is hardly the exoneration of the Trump campaign that many Trump supporters are making it out to be.

From my perspective, Manafort's indictment is the start of a more intense investigation, not the end of an investigation. And the Papadopolus plea is way more interesting/damning (as of now, at least).
17 days ago - Monday 10/30/17 - 9:25:36 PM EST (GMT-5)

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next (showing 51-75 of 114)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Back to Thread List
Top

 
Edit