Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Reality bites...

Here is how it goes. We hear a story. There are facts. There are realities. Then there are speculations as to why this particular fact is actually an certain indication of a whole other slew of facts that don't yet exist.  If you don't agree to the speculation and are unwilling to assume these facts that don't actually exist... then you are "in denial" or a "loyalist" or part of some "conspiracy theory".

Apparently  those who are willing to jump to conclusions without facts to back those conclusions up, are the open minded, grounded, logical thinkers. Anyone demanding evidence of claims, before accepting them as reality are the close minded, unhinged, illogical ones.

Welcome to 2017.

Case in point is the reaction to the Manafort Gates indictment. It's a simply factual legal document. It's in black and white. The contents of it are clear. Yet, if you dare to take the contents of the indictment at face value then you are being naive, an apologist, and are likely engaged in some sort of wishful thinking.

What Huckabee Sanders stated about the indictment is 100% factually accurate. The indictment had nothing to do with Trump, the White House, or the 2016 election. While we are all certainly allowed to speculate on any number of possible scenarios, that speculation doesn't change the fact that factually the indictment provides no evidence of collusion, nor does it in any way engulf Trump or his administration into that particular legal battle.

Why is it "unrealistic" to accept facts at face value?

Certainly it's a fair speculation to argue that Mueller is attempting to gain some sort of leverage over Manafort in order to get him to provide other information. But it's only speculation and even that speculation suggests that Manafort has not provided Mueller with any information that is helpful to Russian interference in the 2016 election. It's no more crazy to assume that he has none to give, than it is to assume that he is holding out on all of the top secret evidence that has otherwise yet to be uncovered.

Certainly it's a fair speculation to argue that Mueller is "just getting started" and that there are more indictments to come. But there is actually no evidence to suggest as much. Other than some paperwork issues with Michael Flynn, and some murky allegations about Carter Page, there is no known, leaked, or otherwise specific speculations as to whom might be charged for what crime.

Everyone knew that Manafort was a target and was likely to be indicted. Between the late night no-knock raid and the statements to the effect that Mueller was going to indict Manafort... the Manafort indictment was expected. Nobody else has been under that amount of scrutiny and from what we know, there has been no other moves made to link anyone else to any outside crimes (the whole false or misleading statement charges aside).

The reality is that when the speculation was (last Friday) that someone would be arrested on Monday, almost everyone knew that it would be Manafort. In fact, there was almost nobody else that made any sense. If Mueller made the same announcement on Friday that someone else would be arrested on Monday... there would not be such certainty of who it might be.  Why? Because there is not an obvious person out there for Mueller to indict. Why is it considered logical and fair minded to simply assume that there is?

Bottom line:  It is what it is. Paul Manafort and his business associate were indicted (as expected) for legal issues that has nothing to do with Donald Trump, nothing to do with Russia, and nothing to do with the 2016 election. That's all we know. It certainly  doesn't prove that Trump colluded with the Russians and it quite literally gets us no closer to proving that allegation. 

Why is that so hard for some people to accept?

70 comments:

Myballs said...

Tony Podesta is similar leverage on the clinton campaign.

Anonymous said...

"Civil Crime" Deep Thinker HB.

Really, can you name three of those crimes?

Anonymous said...

The FBI Informant is my favorite for getting years of inside dirt on the obama-clinton crime famlies.

Anonymous said...




this is what liberals elect:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yo_od4JPzE



Anonymous said...

Trump Economy has a problem IF you read liberal business reporting.

Chicago Business index up briskly. As the liberals see it, the worry is that region is near "over heating". Lol, yeah growing to fast is the problem.

Anonymous said...

Consumer confidence UP 5.3 %. Higher then at any, yes, any time during the Lost years.

#MEGA.

wphamilton said...

Manafort was hired by the campaign in part because of his background with Russia. Of course his illegal lobbying has to do with Russia and the Trump campaign.

If you're saying that neither Trump nor his nepotism gang have been indicted yet, well yeah. The investigation is only half finished.

Anonymous said...

Wow, WP. Poster child for ass hurt loser.

To be fare you had no one for, that had a legit chance at winning.

Myballs said...

Manafort charges are over wire transfers in 2012-2013. About a dozen of them. Nothing to do with 2016 campaign.

Anonymous said...

Deep Thinking HB has them getting "Life in prison with no chance of parol:

C.H. Truth said...

Poor WP and Opie...

both confused by the difference between Ukraine and Russia.

C.H. Truth said...

The investigation is only half finished.

I thought we had it figured, WP...

it was Papadopoulos, the Professor, and the impostor Putin niece...

with the candlestick, in the library.

wphamilton said...

Still taking your victory lap because the first indictments were "only" a dozen felony charges being an illegal foreign agent, money laundering, lying to the FBI, and tax evasion? Well, you might as well enjoy that until your bubble bursts.

james said...

Speaking of Reality "Biting"_----

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds 49% of voters support impeaching President Trump, as compared to 41% who are opposed to doing so.

__________________
Surprised even me.

Anonymous said...

it was Papadopoulos, the Professor, and the impostor Putin niece...
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


...and colonel mustard in the library with a candle stick.


Anonymous said...

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds 49% of voters support impeaching President Trump
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

huh.

liberal poll discovers half of country totally ignorant and devoid of civic education.

less than flattering for those in the liberal set.


commie said...

KD said...

To be fare you had no one

Good one KD....WP is a taxi.....LOLOLOL!!!

C.H. Truth said...

Still taking your victory lap because the first indictments were "only" a dozen felony charges being an illegal foreign agent, money laundering, lying to the FBI, and tax evasion?

WP... I am just trying to keep it real here.

The indictment Mueller brought forward had nothing to do with the investigation he was put in charge to do. The indictment (as a matter of fundamental fact) does not provide a single shred of evidence that ties to the 2016 election.

That is absolutely true no matter how hard you attempt to read into things.

So there is no "victory" here for anyone. There is only disappointment for those who believed that last Friday's announcement was going to provide some tangible evidence against Donald Trump.

It didn't.

Sure... perhaps there is something else coming down the shoot. Although nobody seems to know what it might be?

But I would caution you this.

If you are tossing any of your eggs into the basket of "undercover work" this Papadopoulos was tasked to do... then I think you might be disappointed again.

Factually... (and I apologize for sticking to facts, because I know it irritates you).... this was a low level guy who couldn't get anyone to listen to him when he volunteered for the campaign. To think he can show up in July of 2017 and gain confidence in the upper circles of the Trump team and bring everyone down... well then I got some really nice ocean side property to sell you in Florida.

commie said...

both confused by the difference between Ukraine and Russia.

The only confusion is CH repeating the same stupid thing now 4 times..... denial is your river of bias.....LOL at you dumbass.....

C.H. Truth said...

Well Opie...

I guess it must be Robert Mueller who is in denial.

Because he is the one who "insists" in his indictment that Manaforts connections are with the Ukrainians and not the Russians.

I guess he should have checked with you or WP first, huh? You could have set him straight.

Anonymous said...

Lol @ wp and oDopie.

Anonymous said...

Jane, big nite for you?

wphamilton said...

CH, you're the only one going on about Ukraine vs Russia, with your strange denial that there's any connection.

And if you want to further deny that the indictment of the Trump campaign manager had anything to do with the 2016 election, I'll just let events unfold rather than arguing with such strange notions.

BTW CH, when I refer to "a dozen felony charges" and "Campaign manager", it's Manafort not "low level employee". You're not paying much attention here are you?

"Because he is the one who "insists" in his indictment that Manaforts connections are with the Ukrainians and not the Russians.

I guess he should have checked with you or WP first, huh?"

WTH?? Have you ginned up a fictitious argument that only you're aware of?

Myballs said...

The charges are over money movement in 2012-2013. They're not about the 2016 campaign.

That's probably the case for tony podesta as well.

wphamilton said...

The indictment Mueller brought forward had nothing to do with the investigation he was put in charge to do.

First, Mueller's mandate is:

1 any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;
2, any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;
3, any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

AND, explicitly "authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters."

The indictments are clearly within the scope of the latter two, and frankly tie in directly as links between the Russian government and individuals through (at least) the Russia-Ukraine government-Manafort connection. So, absolutely they are within the scope of his investigation.

Second, what's with this attempt to raise a half-baked pseudo-legal defense from political talking points? You should know better than to try that.

The indictment (as a matter of fundamental fact) does not provide a single shred of evidence that ties to the 2016 election.

It doesn't occur to you at the very least that "corrupt Administration" is almost synonymous with "corrupt Administration staff?" But even if you insist on keeping those blinders on, no matter what, how do you think the payoff would come about with a hypothetical top official? Money laundering, secret international accounts, non-disclosed transactions, and $75,000,000 flowing through the pipeline from foreign political entities shine a spotlight on the infrastructure in place. Obviously, that has to be part of any case that would be made, so just as obviously this IS evidence tying to the 2016 election. Is it enough for the home run, no but it's an essential element.

Anonymous said...

The indictment Mueller brought forward had nothing to do with the investigation he was put in charge to do.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

mueller, like his protege' comey is nothing but a partisan hack.

and yes, i know he's a registered republican. so is bill kristol.

C.H. Truth said...

CH, you're the only one going on about Ukraine vs Russia

Actually WP... you keep bringing up Manafort and Russia. I am just forced to continuously correct you.

So I will make a deal. You keep the facts straight (Manafort indictment was in regards to his dealing with Ukrainians, not Russians) and then I will stop correcting you.

How's that?


Furthermore, I have referred to Papadopoulos as a lower level volunteer member of the Trump campaign staff... not Manafort.

C.H. Truth said...

It doesn't occur to you at the very least that "corrupt Administration" is almost synonymous with "corrupt Administration staff?"

I guess I am confused by how something that Paul Manafort did years prior to joining Trumps' staff... Somehow makes Trump guilty of some crime by association?

But hey... as those lawyers like to say.

If you don't have the facts. Argue the law.
If you don't have the law. Argue the facts.

If you don't have either... pound the table.

Your semantic plays of morphing Ukraine into Russia and Manafort's previous dealings to Trump... seems a lot like someone just pounding the table. You have neither the facts or the law on your side.

But you can play semantics.

Myballs said...

There were 13 unreported suspicious wire transfers in 2012-2013. Just because he was campaign manager for three months done years later does not tie the two events together.

wphamilton said...

CH, I never said that he was indicted for dealing with the Russians. You are "correcting" something from your misreading.

He was a foreign agent hired by the Ukrainian leader Yanukovych to, among other things, lobby on Yanukovych's behalf in DC. Yanukovych, as I hope you're aware, fled to Russia when his corrupt government collapsed. Manafort's lobbying were on behalf of pro-Russian interests, and variously for favorable Russian policy.

In addition, he was hired in 2005 by the Russian oligarch (and close Putin associate) Oleg Deripaska with a $10,000,000 contract to promote Russian interests in the USA and Europe. His company had offices in Russia. So just stop it, CH. Every mention of Russia does NOT have to mean some confusion about Ukraine.

Anonymous said...

Still missing a little sum'm sum'm.

That intent by the sitting President to commit a crime.

Got that?


Anonymous said...

President Trump Economy Jan 21st ,2017 todate, average workers have seen a 2.1 % wage increase.


Lost years under that error called jv obama, not so much.

This week consumer spending rose strongly, oppsie, rose Bigly.

wphamilton said...

There were 13 unreported suspicious wire transfers in 2012-2013. Just because he was campaign manager for three months done years later does not tie the two events together.

He was still laundering the cash through 2017.

Just laundering payments from his clandestine foreign agent business while being Campaign Chairman and a top Trump adviser doesn't mean there's any tie in, right? It's not as if any foreign government or intelligence agencies were actually trying to influence the election ... so there couldn't be any inducement among that illegal money from foreign nations. Man, can you hear yourselves, the lengths you're going to here, to try to distance the campaign from the campaign personnel?

Have you guys even looked into who his OTHER clients were?

wphamilton said...

Blogger KD said...
Still missing a little sum'm sum'm.

That intent by the sitting President to commit a crime.

Got that?


Oh we've got that, Trump's bragged about wanting to obstruct. We don't have proof that he actually did obstruct ... but stay tuned. That's what the rolling up process is all about.

commie said...

He was still laundering the cash through 2017.

BUT HE WASN'T CHARGED WITH MONEY LAUNDERING!!!!!!! Nothing to see there WP, just ask CH.

wphamilton said...

"Nothing to see there WP, just ask CH."

CH forgot to read the indictment I think. Probably short of time, and relied on some talking points.

Myballs said...

The indictments refer to 2006-2015. The 13 unreported wire transfers are from 2012-2013.

You don't get to invent your own facts.

Anonymous said...

Stand up Comedy, ok.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

I read the entire indictment. In fact, I have it on my computer as we speak in PDF in order to reference this.

- For instance... Oleg Deripaska is not mentioned in the indictment.
- For instance... Mueller lists the different transfers in question and even purchases. None of them extend beyond 2014.

The fact that Yanukovych fled to Russia does not change the fact that he is Ukrainian, not Russian.

The problem for you WP... is that if you stick to what is in the indictment, then it simply doesn't prove what you want it to prove. So you obscure things by attempting to blend the facts of the indictment along with the conspiracy theories of Russian collusion... as if they are one and the same.

They are not.

Again... I get that you are probably very disappointed that Mueller's first big move doesn't even come in the general vicinity of the President.... But for god's sake, don't turn into Roger...

This is not Trump, Trump, Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia.
This is Manafort, Manafort, Manafort, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine.

That is just the fact.





Anonymous said...

Sure he does. Since Nov. 9th, 2016.
Around 3 am.

Remember when political speech was protected speech.

cowardly king obama said...


Looks like Harvey Weinstein might be able to take over as editor of The New Republic.

Well qualified, fits in, and at this point what difference does it make?

Might even write some content for PoliticalWire

Anonymous said...



But for god's sake, don't turn into Roger...
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


LOL.



Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Manafort has an almost impossible case to defend.


Documents and email cannot be questioned.

CH can't handle another Roger. Good job wp.

You picked him into shreds.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
Manafort has an almost impossible case to defend.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


only according to you.

to the legally informed he's not in bad shape at all.

your wishful thinking wet dreams don't count for anything other than maybe more laundry to do, alky.






wphamilton said...

CH, you and others need to read it AGAIN before sticking to that claim of everything happening before 2015. Yes, the transactions listed for "tax evasion" may be within that time frame, but the charges of the indictment are NOT limited to those.

Review paragraph 14, "The Scheme". Not only was Manafort and Gates still hiding their income through 2017, they ALSO "executed and attempted to execute ... to obtain money" by means of money laundering. And you are unequivocally incorrect that money laundering was not a charge. The indictment cites the Federal money laundering statute, title 18 USC 1956(a).

I AM sticking to the indictment here, 100% - the problem is that you aren't reading what's there in black and white.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

So then you would agree that the indictment only lists wires made between 2008 and 2014... and that according to the indictment that the lobbying campaign took place between 2006 and 2014?

wphamilton said...

Good lord CH, I'm not "disappointed ... that the first indictment doesn't even come in the general vicinity of the President." Please quit pretending that I'm stupid, attributing things that I haven't said.

I didn't expect it to have anything at all regarding Trump. In fact, it's even more on target with the main aim than I was anticipating. Keep your eye on the ball: if you are eventually going to make a case for illegal "collusion", or alternatively "obstruction" there are certain things that you will have to establish. Contacts between the parties, mechanisms for quid pro quo, establish motives. And these indictments begin to establish these prerequisites to a degree. You've got to be willfully oblivious to deny that.

C.H. Truth said...

Serious question WP...

Obviously you would be aware that charging someone with conspiracy to commit a crime is different than actually charging them with that crime.

Why do you suppose Mueller charged them with "conspiracy to launder money" rather than actual money laundering?

wphamilton said...

So then you would agree that the indictment only lists wires made between 2008 and 2014... and that according to the indictment that the lobbying campaign took place between 2006 and 2014?

Nope, the indictment lists a whole lot of criminal activity in addition to wire transfers between 2008 and 2014. You're making far too much out of that - those listed transfers are in support of the tax evasion charges. Yes, the listed transfers are in that time frame. No, that time frame isn't particularly meaningful other than to establish those particular charges. Certainly not exculpatory.

In November 2016 and February 2017 they were lying to the FBI about their activities. In October 2016 Manafort falsely reported his foreign bank accounts. In 2016 Manafort fraudulently obtained a 1.4 million loan. In 2017 Manafort committed obstruction. He is charged with continuing criminal behavior throughout and even beyond his stint with Trump.

As you say, stick with the actual indictment, and look at ALL of it. ALL of it impacts the Trump campaign, even the transactions that occurred previously, because they establish Manafort as an undeclared agent of foreign entities, as fraudulent, and payed vast sums of money for it.

C.H. Truth said...

Keep your eye on the ball: if you are eventually going to make a case for illegal "collusion", or alternatively "obstruction" there are certain things that you will have to establish. Contacts between the parties, mechanisms for quid pro quo, establish motives

Right... but indicting Manafort for dealings with Ukrainians that ended prior to any allegations of collusion between Trump and Russians....

certainly doesn't establish anything of that sort. There is literally no tangible overlap without a very, very, very vivid imagination.

So far, you are the only person who I have seen attempting to establish some actual link, when most everyone else (even Trump haters) recognize that (at best) this is an attempt by Mueller to pressure Manafort or Gates into providing information.


Personally... if you want my honest opinion. This was a matter of timing. There doesn't appear to be a tangible reason to do this "now". Many legal experts believe that Mueller gives up leverage by moving forward with the indictment. Now he must turn over all of his evidence to the defense. etc. He could get drawn into a trial in the middle of the investigation. I originally heard that there was a statute of limitations issue, but that doesn't appear to be the case (they already lost a couple of years and what's one more year if the bigger fish are not Manafort and Gates).

It seems like an attempt to change the narrative, which had turned against Mueller to the point where it was suggested that "he" could find himself under investigation.

But hey... that's just me.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

So the indictment doesn't state this?

19.In furtherance of the scheme, from 2006 until 2014, both dates being approximate and inclusive, MANAFORT and GATES engaged in a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign in the United States at the direction of Y anukovych, the Party of Regions, and the Government of Ukraine. MANAFORT and GATES did so without registering and providing the disclosures required by law.


Because let's face it... I don't believe that Manafort lobbying for Ukrainians ties to Trump and Russia... and I certainly don't consider a mortgage fraud case to be relevant to Trump and Russia...

Do you?

wphamilton said...

Why do you suppose Mueller charged them with "conspiracy to launder money" rather than actual money laundering?

First, because more than one person is involved.

Secondly, he IS charged with the actual crimes (felony violation of FARA, AND the IRS charge) and the COUNT TWO (Conspiracy To Launder Money) charge is in addition to that charge. If you'll look specifically at the statute, it is "with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity".

And third, he charges with "(H) Any person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section or section 1957 shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy" so it makes no difference in the penalty.

Don't read too much into the word "conspiracy" in the section heading. There isn't much significance to that with this crime.

wphamilton said...

certainly doesn't establish anything of that sort. There is literally no tangible overlap without a very, very, very vivid imagination.

Money laundering during his tenure with Trump, the proceeds from his stint as a clandestine foreign agent, if it holds up, is a very strong overlap. No one will now accept such defenses as "how would he even receive a quid pro quo" or "it's a fanciful conspiracy theory", because it will have been already demonstrated and proven.

Besides, as you have noted yourself, nothing stops a grand jury from adding charges nor a reduction for his cooperation at this point.

Anonymous said...



"with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity".
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


i think it is SO cool that we've evolved to the point where we're prosecuting thought crimes.

i'm starting to think that the greatest prophet of all time was george orwell.





wphamilton said...

You're right it doesn't specifically tie Trump to Russia (yet) but it does tie Trump's 2016 campaign to Russia (indirectly), and ties his campaign to illegal and fraudulent money. That may be all that's needed to proceed to obstruction.

wphamilton said...

i think it is SO cool that we've evolved to the point where we're prosecuting thought crimes.

To the extent that any criminal statute that requires establishing intent is "prosecuting thought crimes", I suppose. But you leave out that he actually has to try to do it. This money laundering statute was designed to snare organized crime leaders because it was so difficult to tie them directly to the crimes of their organization.

There is a more insidious possibility. By prosecuting Manafort for money laundering primarily occurring prior to the 2016 campaign, it opens the door a crack to examine Trump's own financials during that period and perhaps before. His casino shenanigans for example.

Anonymous said...

That may be all that's needed to proceed to obstruction.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


absolutely.

this case will proceed on the thinnest of gruel and continue for at least the entire first term. long ago this stopped being about justice or the law. mueller's crew is 100% invested in getting trump, and nothing short of that will satisfy them.

never forget that this entire shitshow was born on the day after hillary got her clock cleaned. her campaign needed a false narrative to explain away an embarrassing loss, so here we are. "russia, russia, russia." pure bullshit all the way down.

there's no carriage of justice here. this is about getting trump, or getting a pound of flesh from those close to him.

Anonymous said...

There is a more insidious possibility. By prosecuting Manafort for money laundering primarily occurring prior to the 2016 campaign, it opens the door a crack to examine Trump's own financials during that period and perhaps before. His casino shenanigans for example.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


sure. which get's us about as far afield as possible for mueller's original purpose - to investigate trump ties to putin and russia which influenced the election.

thank's for admitting what this is really all about - getting trump at all costs, even if it's over a 20 year old alleged casino crime. then we can get his tax returns and hoo boy, the sky's the limit!!!


call it what it is wp - a coup.





C.H. Truth said...

WP

Wasn't the point of his entire counsel to allow the American public to directly understand what happened with the 2016 election, to the degree that the Russians might have been involved, and if there was any collusion between Russians and Americans?

At least that's what everyone called for?

If Mueller started investigating the President's personal finances... then most reasonable Democrats would even agree that he has gone over the line. If that is Mueller's ultimate goal (to investigate a series of other expanding events unrelated to the election) then he should be fired yesterday.

Anonymous said...

If Mueller started investigating the President's personal finances... then most reasonable Democrats would even agree that he has gone over the line.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


first of all, there's no such thing as a reasonable democrat.

second, they're out for GOP blood every fucking day. there is no 'line'. there's a coup underway, there has been since 01/20/2017, and the investigation into trump will go all the way back to the day he plopped out of the womb if it has to.

if there are people on mueller's team charged with looking into trump's father's real estate dealings it wouldn't surprise me.

C.H. Truth said...

WP

If law enforcement had reasonable suspicion (probable cause) to investigate the Trump business dealings over the years, then they would have already done so.

It sounds like you are advocating that a team of investigators be given free reign to go on a witch hunt, without oversight, and look to see if there are crimes out there somewhere committed by Donald Trump (with or without any probable cause to do so)?

Does that about sum it up for you?

wphamilton said...

Anything related to the issue of the campaign's illegal cooperation with Russia or related to obstruction is within his remit. Any crimes that come up when examining those related things are also within his remit. One potential theory is that illegal money laundering gives the Russians a chance to get their hooks in you, so that would be fair game if that's where the investigation leads.

You all are seeing this far differently than I, and it appears to be a fundamental difference in world view and ethical philosophy. If the guy is a criminal, if he's "on the take", then he is a danger to our national security, undeserving of office, and needs to be prosecuted no matter who he is. But your perspective seems to be that it's OK if he skips by "gaming" it: if a crime is not specifically in a narrow purview that was previously defined, it should not affect him.

wphamilton said...

And consider this: if there were a recommendation for obstruction charges the first thing you all are going to demand is why would he? What is his motive, what could be serious enough to obstruct justice to cover up?

Money laundering through his casino could be that thing, if the Russians knew and exploited it. It would be a very strong, plausible motive for Trump to obstruct an investigation into his cooperating with someone who owned that leverage. It doesn't have to be laundering either, it could be anywhere in Trump's extensive history of financial dealings with the Russian banking system. All of that has to be looked at sooner or later before obstruction charges are feasible, unless you expect that clear motive to arise from the infamous dirt dossier?

Myballs said...

Wp keeps claiming that this ties manafort's old activities to the 2016 campaign. That is just false. No it does not. He mag wish it but there is no connection.

C.H. Truth said...

So WP...

You believe in a police state. Where Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions can just appoint someone to start investigating their political opponents with no oversight and no due process?

Here I figured you for more of the liberal/libertarian type... who would believe that the fourth amendment is necessary to protect citizens from rogue investigations and rogue police action.

So yeah, we do come from a different ethical and moral state. I believe that people should not be subjected to have their private affairs gone through by the Government without due process and with out legitimate probable cause.

For those of you who believe that "that person could have conceivably committed a crime so let's tear his/her life apart to make sure one way or the other" - I believe you and your support for rogue nazi type police state have serious moral issues.

james said...

Papadopoulos Said Trump Campaign Approved Meeting

October 31, 2017 at 7:13 pm EDT

Former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos made a significant claim in an email: Top Trump campaign officials agreed to a pre-election meeting with representatives of Russian President Vladimir Putin,” Bloomberg reports.

“The email is cited in an FBI agent’s affidavit supporting criminal charges against Papadopoulos… But it’s not included in court documents that detailed his secret guilty plea and his cooperation with Special Counsel Robert Mueller.”
______________________
Full article available here

https://politicalwire.com/2017/10/31/papadopoulos-said-trump-campaign-approved-meeting/

Anonymous said...

For those of you who believe that "that person could have conceivably committed a crime so let's tear his/her life apart to make sure one way or the other" - I believe you and your support for rogue nazi type police state have serious moral issues.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


ah, but understand that wp's and roger's motivations are the same. what you describe they would apply to their political enemies. their political friends would be exempt from such atrocities.


HBR.




wphamilton said...

So WP...

You believe in a police state. Where Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions can just appoint someone to start investigating their political opponents with no oversight and no due process?


Hardly. I believe in holding criminals accountable, and I believe even more strongly in not allowing criminals in positions of authority. It's not that nuanced: when there are known facts that indicate that a crime may have been committed, start investigating. If he's committed a crime, remove him and prosecute.

It IS due process, and there IS oversight. Just not oversight by the person and office under investigation. These kinds of objections probably seem reasonable to those who are partial to Trump, but to me they sound exactly like what we've heard from every crooked politician that was ever charged with anything. You could recycle from the Nixon era, just change the names and faces ... and it will go on right up to the point of impeachment should that occur. So I understand where you're coming from, but from the objective point of view you're way out in left field.

wphamilton said...

ah, but understand that wp's and roger's motivations are the same. what you describe they would apply to their political enemies. their political friends would be exempt from such atrocities.

Again, like CH you are projecting something that isn't there. I would and have held the same position regardless of the political party or individual. I am hoping in fact, that if the Podesta's are as involved with this as it seems now, that the investigation includes their business as well.

You should take a page from KD's book, and I agree with him on this. If they're guilty, he said, "Good. Prosecute them". Simple as that.

wphamilton said...

Anonymous Myballs said...
Wp keeps claiming that this ties manafort's old activities to the 2016 campaign. That is just false. No it does not.


The campaign manager is part of the campaign - a BIG part of it.

Ax murderer running a campaign ties the murders to the campaign.
Politician taking bribes running a campaign ties bribery to the campaign.
Clandestine foreign agent running a campaign ties his past interests to the campaign.

This is why Meuller's mandate explicitly included individuals in Trump's campaign. YOU may wish it wasn't so, but the reality is, that is exactly what Mueller is investigating, and it is exactly WHY he is investigating them.