Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Mueller and the Press are responsible for their own actions...

So recently there has been a call for censorship. As it has been with the spoiled rotten self centered liberals for some time, they always feel that it's their right to say what's on their mind, and then their freedom of speech requires that everyone else shut up and listen. The concept of freedom of speech going both ways, seems to escape their attention.



Currently, this attitude is prevalent with both Special Counsel and the Media.  The left would like everyone to stop saying anything bad about Mueller and his probe, and of course they would also like people to stop picking on the press. In other words, they want to censor anyone who would dare criticize or question either.

But the truth of the matter is that both Mueller and the Press are responsible for their own actions, and it is imperative that people call them out when those actions are not on the up and up.

Let's start with Mueller. First and foremost, who Mueller "was" or how you want to "define him" has absolutely zero relevance to his actions as Special Counsel. So whenever you hear someone preface their point with an accompanying resume about Robert Mueller, you can assume that their point otherwise doesn't resonate.  Robert Mueller should be (and for the most part is) being judged on his actions. His reputation or history is meaningless as it pertains to how he is actually running his probe.

Reality. If Robert Mueller didn't want to be accused of running a biased probe, then he should not have loaded up his team with anti-Trump agents, many of whom have obvious ties to Hillary Clinton. That should be common sense.  The fact that Mueller did load up his team with people tied to Clinton is his own fault The criticism that comes from this is his own doing.  It's a matter of censorship to demand that such criticism not be leveled.

If Mueller didn't want to be criticized over no knock raids with cooperating witnesses, or possibly making an illegal grab of (legally defined) private communications, than he should have gone through more reasonable methods to garner his information. He made the controversial moves, and he is responsible for the criticism that comes with that. 

As far as the media goes, this is really simple. They need to get things right. Not 50% of the time. Not 75% of the time. Not 90% of the time. Not even 99% of the time. They need to be right all of the time. If they cannot verify that some big scoop is 100% correct, then they do what the media "used to do" and they wait till they can verify the story as 100% correct, and then they run it.

As long as the media insists on running stories that are not verified, and as long as they are willing to make mistakes to be first on a potential scoop, then they deserve all of the criticism that they receive. All of it.  If they do not want to be criticized for getting things wrong, then they need to get them right, 100% of the time.

The bottom line is that Mueller is running a probe that is garnering a lot of criticism for being potentially biased, and for using questionable means to obtain information. This criticism is valid, and based on Mueller's own actions. The Media is being criticized for reporting news stories that are wrong, and for showing strong anti-Trump bias.  The criticism is valid, and based entirely on the actions of the media themselves.

Defenders would like you to shoot the messengers.

170 comments:

Anonymous said...




mueller, the media, and congressional democrats have formed a triumvirate of deception and lies. the goal at this point being to keep this circle jerk alive until the midterm election.

Anonymous said...




Why do heads seem to be rolling—or at least tilting—at the Department of Justice and FBI?


https://sharylattkisson.com/2017/12/25/investigating-the-investigators-at-doj-and-fbi/






hey alky, care to venture a guess to answer atkisson's question?

Anonymous said...

Nevertheless, CNN portrayed Trump’s dossier tweet as evidence of a deep-seeded anxiety over Steele’s allegations.

“The president just can’t let this thing go about the fake dossier,” CNN fill-in host Bill Weir said early Tuesday morning, shortly after Trump published his tweet.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/26/cnn-obsesses-over-trumps-tweet-about-the-dossier-video/


cnn obsessing over something that's simply not true? is that even possible?







Why doesn't the press... said...

ttps://www.quora.com/Why-doesn’t-the-press-give-President-Trump-credit-for-turning-this-country-around-after-the-economic-disaster-that-the-Obama-presidency-was

Anonymous said...

Consumer Confidence at Historic highs.

Anonymous said...

Pending Home Sales rise "unexpectedly".

Fueling the purchases that go into a new home. This Economy has just filled up on premium fuel.

Gallup said...

Barack Obama is 'most admired man' for tenth year in a row, Gallup poll says

Sources said...

“...sources familiar with the probe say that ...Mueller and his team, ... are pursuing new leads, interrogating new witnesses and collecting a mountain of new evidence, including subpoenaed bank records and thousands of emails from the campaign and the Trump transition.”

caliphate4vr said...

go away you stupid old man

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to BLM/Hillary/Kappernec and other social Warriors.

NFL Cuts Sunday night football for week 17.

Take your victory lap.

Anonymous said...

Jane why do feel the need to hide, we know it's you.

Are all the so called men in your family cowards?

C.H. Truth said...

“...sources familiar with the probe say that ...Mueller and his team, ... are pursuing new leads, interrogating new witnesses and collecting a mountain of new evidence, including subpoenaed bank records and thousands of emails from the campaign and the Trump transition.”

James - Reality:

- The Trump transition records were taken at least a couple of months ago. It's only new to the media.
- Both Trump Lawyers and the Bank denied that any bank records were provided to Mueller, and the original source of that story retracted it.

Anonymous said...

The Great National Freeze, any one seen oPie?

Anonymous said...

ISIS has lost 98 percent of the territory it once held -- with half of that terror group's so-called "caliphate" having been recaptured since President Trump took office less than a year ago, U.S. military officials said Tuesday.

The massive gains come after years of "onerous" rules, when critics say the Obama administration “micromanaged” the war and shunned a more intensive air strategy that could have ended the conflict much sooner.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/26/isis-has-lost-98-percent-its-territory-mostly-since-trump-took-office-officials-say.html


skeets couldn't even beat the JV team.

heh.


Anonymous said...




the pederast peeled that shit from the puff ho:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mueller-probe-outgrows-its-witch-hunt-phase_us_5a4402a2e4b06d1621b6b4d9

Anonymous said...

Jane, an idiot and coward.

wphamilton said...

The fact that Mueller did load up his team with people tied to Clinton

Not a fact.

If Mueller didn't want to be criticized over no knock raids with cooperating witnesses,

Are you talking about Manafort??? He was anything but cooperative.

or possibly making an illegal grab of (legally defined) private communications,

Not legally defined as private. Not illegal grab.

than he should have gone through more reasonable methods to garner his information.

You don't even know what methods he used to obtain them, other than his very general statement. For all you know he does have a warrant.


The controversy is a transparent political hit attempting to impugn the evidence that Mueller has collected, and trying to stop him from going further.

Loretta said...

"Jane why do feel the need to hide, we know it's you."

Pedophiles hide.

Anonymous said...

HB Bitches about Trump's attack on Boeing.

That so called attack has that stock up. From $155.68 to today's close of $295.72.

HB is a really good stock picker.

Anonymous said...

It is queer of him to use a fake ID.

Anonymous said...

While the four Liberal stooges of CHT self abuse with hillary/Pres*/Mueller.

We regular people do our work, earn a living and invest in our futures.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Censorship would be popular here

Loretta said...

Start your own blog chicken shit.

Anonymous said...

HB, What exactly do you want to say here, but have not?

Anonymous said...

When do I start receiving the Obama Health Insurance policy reduction of $2,500 a year.

I know my Trump tax saving starts Jan. 1, 2018.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I thought you would be all over the plan to make Flynn look like a liar, if he's got data that might sink the USS Donald J. Narcissist.


Trump legal team readies attack on Flynn’s credibility.

President Trump’s legal team plans to cast former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn as a liar seeking to protect himself if he accuses the president or his senior aides of any wrongdoing, according to three people familiar with the strategy.

Flynn is the most senior former Trump adviser known to be providing information to Mueller’s team. The lenient terms of his plea agreement suggest he has promised significant information to investigators, legal experts said.

The Free Press makes mistakes, everybody does, but this strikes me as a way to make sure that the news about CH's hero looks bad. He's lost it long ago, and wp and I have been shredding his peas in the pool theory.

The story is that Flynn may know that the Trump campaign and the Russians coordinated their use of Twitter and Facebook posts that had influence on millions of Americans.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

That's wp, not anyone else. Twit. He shredded CH. We have been doing it since his Trumpism has overwhelmed him.

Loretta said...

Nonsense.

It's the pedophile, unless you're saying WP is a troll like you and the pedo.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

That's his style.
He's been on the blog for years. To you anyone who doesn't love Trump is troll in your crippling mind.

Back to posting on politics, not your pathetic comments

Y
Trump campaign was warned by the intelligence agencies across but it's beginning to look a lot there is evidence of how the Russians and the Trump campaign on the use at very similar times posted on Facebook and Twitter, in collusion

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...


The bottom line is that Mueller is running a probe that is garnering a lot of criticism for being potentially biased, and for using questionable means to obtain information.

This criticism is valid, and based on Mueller's own actions.


The Media is being criticized for reporting news stories that are wrong, and for showing strong anti-Trump bias.

The criticism is valid, and based entirely on the actions of the media themselves.

By whom? Of course? You, the President, his defense lawyers and some, but not many, fellow Republicans.

Anonymous said...

When does the fair minded zero-bias Team Mueller indict the Hillary Team?

Whom is he looking at on the Left?

Anonymous said...

HB calls WP the Troll and Not Jane.

OK.

Commonsense said...

By whom?

By the American people. They see through the sham.

Anonymous said...

Those of you receiving Social Security or have it as part of your "retirement plan".

Know this the money and earning on that money is not yours.

Flemming v Nestor, 1960 USSC.

Commonsense said...

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

Still upside down but considering that 95% of the media coverage is negative (Hitler and Mussolini got better press). It is somewhat a miracle.

Anonymous said...

Trump campaign was warned by the intelligence agencies across but it's beginning to look a lot there is evidence of how the Russians and the Trump campaign on the use at very similar times posted on Facebook and Twitter, in collusion
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


LOL. you have got to be fucking kidding me, addict.

mueller's case has now been reduced to trump and russia, russia, russia posting shit on social media at around the same time???

that's your collusion???

it's no wonder that most sane people are left to laughing at this farce. especially the part where trump is going to fire mueller. why fire the guy who's making himself look like an idiot each day?

i can see why you've become addicted to opioids, alky. you have to be fucking numb to believe the shit that you do.

Anonymous said...

Roger Amick said...
I thought you would be all over the plan to make Flynn look like a liar,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

no one has to make flynn look like a liar, alky.

flynn was fired for lying to the vice president. if you weren't strung out on opioids all the time you might be able to remember the fundamental facts surrounding flynn. the man has, like you, zero credibility. and mueller has managed to charge him with the pettiest of process crimes.

Anonymous said...

RRB, HB aka Addict, has had a horrible 14 months. HILLARY got her ass kicked to the Curb in States she was assured by HB, she would win.
Then she joined/funded a recount, lost again.
Then she released her paid for Russian Dossier, co funded by Obama/Fbi.

ADDICT, assured us on Nov. 9th , 2016, the Stock Markets have crashed and would never recover.

Lost again.

Hillary's #Resist funding of Antifa was a funny.

So let him find comfort in his new addition, the abuse of Opiums.

Anonymous said...

Alky aka Addict, had a mushroom clouds in the air by now a Pres. Trump nuked em'.

WP both wants us military action at the same time he says Pres. Trump will not do it.

Fence sitting is the only thing What a pussy is good at.

Commonsense said...

Another episode of Flying Miss Sheila:

United Passenger Accused Of Racism By Jackson Lee Is A Human Rights Activist

As has already been noted by numerous conservative critics, Sheila Jackson Lee rarely sees anything in this world which can’t be attributed to racism in some fashion, but is that really the case here? Was this some privileged white woman who messed up her own reservation and then became enraged when a black person was given her seat? The Washington Times dug a bit deeper and found that Simon’s background isn’t exactly one which lends itself to KKK membership. In fact, she’s worked for years as a human rights activist in Guatemala.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Good Morning Trumpmania.

The Trump administration has built on those gains in the last year of President Obama , particularly in recent months. Business confidence has soared on the expectation of sweeping tax cuts as well as the administration’s push to roll back regulations on everything from energy to housing to health care to labor rules.

But hard economic data on growth, job creation and wages look very similar to the last several years under Obama. The pace of job growth actually slowed slightly to 174,000 per month in 2017 through November, compared with 187,000 per month in Obama’s final year.

Even Trump’s stock market performance is similar to or trails Obama’s. In the first 11 months of Obama’s presidency, the Standard & Poor’s 500 rose 37 percent. It rose 18 percent under Trump. The Dow rose 30 percent in Obama’s first 11 months to Trump’s 24 percent.

Anonymous said...




don't forget to include the fawning for 0linsky politico link, alky:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/28/trump-message-obama-economy-260858

Anonymous said...

United Passenger Accused Of Racism By Jackson Lee Is A Human Rights Activist
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


the average IQ in that asshole's congressional district must be in the double digits.

only a pack of morons could continue to send her back to washington.

Loretta said...

"Another episode of Flying Miss Sheila:"

Good Lord, an embarrassment to black Americans.

Of course, so is Obama. So there's that.

Loretta said...

"the average IQ in that asshole's congressional district must be in the double digits"

Too kind.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I'm going to tell you one more time.

I take a generic for Norco. I have never been addicted, nor have I ever had any of the side effects, not one. I have been using the 5mg and 325mg Tylenol for at least five years. If I had EVER exhibited any symptoms of addiction, I would have quit and requested an alternative because I am very aware of the issues with addiction.

You are losing the argument and are using it to deny the truth.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

More good morning Trumpist with more good news.

Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill confirmed Thursday morning that Democrat Doug Jones will be certified the winner of the Alabama special Senate election despite Republican Roy Moore's refusal to concede and request for a new election.

"Will this affect anything?" Merrill said on CNN's "New Day," referring to Moore's challenge. "The short answer to that is no."

Merrill said he would meet Thursday afternoon with Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey and the state Attorney General Steve Marshall to certify Jones' win, and that Jones would indeed be sworn in when the Senate returns in January.


"We will sign the documents certifying him as the senator for the state of Alabama," Merrill said. "He will be sworn in by Vice President Pence on January 3 when the Senate returns."

Moore refused to concede in the wake of the election result, and on Wednesday, he filed an election complaint alleging voter fraud may have occurred. He called for a delay in the certification of the results that declared Jones officially the winner and asked for "a new special election."

Merrill stressed that any citizen can come forward to bring up allegations of voter fraud that they've seen and that his office would adjudicate them.

"Any citizen has the opportunity to submit an allegation of voter fraud that they've witnessed," Merrill said. "We'll investigate those."

The main person behind the claim to vote fraud in the majority African-American district also believes that the JFK assassination was a CIA plot.

Commonsense said...

And we care why?

Anonymous said...




losing the argument, addict?

every time i check, felonia von pantsuit the drunk is not my president.

donald trump is. so i guess i won that argument.

your other "argument," if you want to call it that, is a fucking 'russia, russia, russia' circle jerk with robert mueller as the pivot man. and trump appears to be winning that one as well.

so you went from being a piss-drunk alcoholic to being addicted to opioids for 5 years, with a pit stop to snag yourself a second-hand liver. geezus alky, you can't win a fucking argument with yourself let alone another human being. you're a fucking mess.





Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I'm going to give some blood.

To your everlasting regrets the results have been outstanding and exceeding expectations.

After that I will be going to the gym and my trainer will kick my ass off.

Enjoy your narcissistic personality President, who is not the most admired American. His name is President Barack Hussein Obama. The most admired American woman is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Good news isn't that awesome?

Commonsense said...

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

Little postscript from Drudge. Trump has the exact same poll numbers at Barack Obama did at the end of his first year.

Don't know if that bodes for good or ill but it's worth remembering that the Democrats got shellacked in the 2010 midterms.

Anonymous said...

Good Lord, an embarrassment to black Americans.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


i'm starting to wonder if the overwhelming majority of black americans even possess the capacity to be embarrassed considering the fact that 90+% of them vote reliably democrat.

Commonsense said...

I'm going to give some blood. P

Getting blood tests is not the same as giving blood.

Anonymous said...

And we care why?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

we don't care, despite the board narcissist insisting that we do.

it's like he has a tic or tourette's or something.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

A simple comparisons between two here. One can't write a coherent and grammatically incorrect post and the alleged victim of drug addiction.
so you went from being a piss-drunk alcoholic to being addicted to opioids for 5 years, with a pit stop to snag yourself a second-hand liver. geezus alky, you can't win a fucking argument with yourself let alone another human being. you're a fucking mess.

I take a generic for Norco. I have never been addicted, nor have I ever had any of the side effects, not one. I have been using the 5mg and 325mg Tylenol for at least five years. If I had EVER exhibited any symptoms of addiction, I would have quit and requested an alternative because I am very aware of the issues with addiction.

I report and you decide which one is in incredibly healthy and caring human being and one who is not a hate filled racist rodent bastard


Commonsense said...

WTF?

Anonymous said...



To your everlasting regrets the results have been outstanding and exceeding expectations.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

oh, i want you to live to a very ripe old age alky. and i'm content in the knowledge that when you do take the big dirt nap, i will be living in your head rent-free until the bitter end.

heh.




Anonymous said...

Acetaminophen / Hydrocodone

Brand name: Norco

Narcotic
It can treat pain.

Controlled substance

High risk for addiction and dependence.

Can cause respiratory distress and death when taken in high doses or when combined with other substances, especially alcohol.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
A simple comparisons between two here. One can't write a coherent and grammatically incorrect post and the alleged victim of drug addiction.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


what???


Loretta said...

"If I had EVER exhibited any symptoms of addiction, I would have quit and requested an alternative because I am very aware of the issues with addiction."

Says the drunken creeper.

caliphate4vr said...

A simple comparisons between two here. One can't write a coherent and grammatically incorrect post and the alleged victim of drug addiction.

That's coherent???

Loretta said...

"what???"

LOL.

Can't make it up.

Anonymous said...

Example of HB winning.

Dow Crashing"
Since that statement the Dow is UP 521 points.

Anonymous said...

Didn't the Alternative Leftist here tell US that the Voters FOR Hillary are richer then the Trump Voter.
IF that is true, The Hillary Voter will see the Largest tax cuts.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

So you admit that you have been taking an addictive opioid based pain killer for the past five years.

Only you know for sure if you could just stop tomorrow cold turkey or not.

But quite obviously there are going to be many holding the opinion that a former alcoholic taking a drug not recommended for people with a history of substance abuse... is probably addicted.

Anonymous said...

IF that is true, The Hillary Voter will see the Largest tax cuts.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


the hillary voters up here in NY are freaking out bigly. and it's almost comical to watch prominent democrats like my governor defending the rich who are losing their precious SALT deductions over $10K.


Anonymous said...

But quite obviously there are going to be many holding the opinion that a former alcoholic taking a drug not recommended for people with a history of substance abuse... is probably addicted.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


how much you want to bet that the doc who wrote the narco scrip had no idea roger's an alky?

wphamilton said...

Roger said ... The Free Press makes mistakes, everybody does, but this strikes me as a way to make sure that the news about CH's hero looks bad. He's lost it long ago, and wp and I have been shredding his peas in the pool theory.


Some of it is so far-fetched that you'd think surely he's getting something out of it, but I kind of doubt it. I think CH is just practicing political spin to see if it will fly. But everything written here about the Mueller investigation ranges from really weak to factually wrong. It's getting boring to refute.

Loretta said...

"So you admit that you have been taking an addictive opioid based pain killer for the past five years."

Explains a lot, really...

Anonymous said...

RRB, when I first heard the defense of SALT must be higher then $10,000 , thought wtf. So, I did a quick tabulation of my SALT . Kansas Taxes Vehicles as real property, land in ag is taxed and so is my Primary homestead. Adding in the taxes on land holdings, both incumbered and unincumbered. Our total SALT is 1/2 the CAP.

Anonymous said...

"Scrip Shopping"

Been known to happen. Oh yeah, Rush Limbaugh, recall the shit alky/addict gave Rush.

Loretta said...

"But everything written here about the Mueller investigation ranges from really weak to factually wrong."

Soooo, Manafort and Flynn have been charged with collusion?

They've been charged with something other than process crimes?

Good to know.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

You crack me up!! (sometimes I almost believe you are serious)

But, hey, the opioid taking addict believes you!
So you got that going for you!!

C.H. Truth said...

Soooo, Manafort and Flynn have been charged with collusion?

You just refuse to "connect the dots" is all.

Remember... real factual arguments always involve accepting unproven variables into the equation. If you don't accept all suspicion and innuendo, then you are basically not being "factual".

Loretta said...

Got it.

Anonymous said...

RRB, when I first heard the defense of SALT must be higher then $10,000 , thought wtf.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

most rational people did. rationality is in short supply up here in NY though, as is reflected in our deep blue political status. wealth is fleeing while our thought leaders dream up new schemes to import poverty. every one of the learjet liberal geniuses who are freaking out are failing o ask the most fundamental question -

"why are our taxes so fucking high to begin with???"

but liberals, ever faithful to their beloved entitlements, didn't see a problem when the SALT's could be written off via red state taxpayer subsidies. because that's what this really is, you know. guys like you in states that don't allow SALT write-off's really are subsidizing guys like me.

and my governor being the pathological liar that he is, complained about this and framed it as "double taxation." and his faithful liberal flock just lapped it up.


Myballs said...

Not sure what wp thinks he's refuting. The evidence is pointing to the clinton campaign and obama administration. Not trump.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Yes, Jim. Trump continued the offensive that began under Obama. By the time he was inaugurated, ISIS had already been driven out of Fallujah, Tikrit, Ramadi, Mt. Sinjar, Kobani and were in the process of being driven out of the western half of Mosul (having already been driven out of the eastern half.) The very same war continued until its end. Trump taking credit for ISIS is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about-- he's taking credit for what others already did (the bull market, which began in 2010 and has continued since, unemployment that was already under 5% when he took office, and the decision by Ford to build SUV's in Michigan that had already been made months earlier but that Trump took credit for soon after being elected, are also examples.

Trump taking credit for beating ISIS is a GREAT example of why he has no plan and is hoping to ride on the backs of the hard work of others that was planned out and was already largely executed before he became President so history won't judge him too harshly.

Anonymous said...

But everything written here about the Mueller investigation ranges from really weak to factually wrong.

wp, a couple of times my curiosity got the best of me so i searched for the sources of some of your - let's call them 'interpretations' - to be kind.
talk about an exercise in futility.


It's getting boring to refute.

but fun to troll.

Myballs seeing America become great again said...

Just stop.

There was no offensive under obama. He had the generals so constrained that isis had 35,000 fighters and christians in iraq were afraid to worship.

Trump knew enough to let the generals do what they do best. Just acknowledge it.

Anonymous said...




addict,

trump isn't TAKING credit for killing ISIS as much as he's GIVING credit to the soldiers and sailors doing the killing.

and it's many of those same soldiers and sailors who are praising trump for nothing more than letting them do their fucking jobs.

you can parrot the false narrative being peddled by the msm until you finally overdose, but that will never make it true.

Anonymous said...

Trump knew enough to let the generals do what they do best. Just acknowledge it.


mattis probably deserves more credit than trump.

Anonymous said...

That is it. Let the warfighters do the job. And they did. Safety Off, JV Team defeated.

Commonsense said...

Just stop.

There was no offensive under obama. He had the generals so constrained that isis had 35,000 fighters and christians in iraq were afraid to worship.


Roger publish the same crap in the open mic thread and that's where I responded.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I'm not addicted asshole.

If I was I would have taken one today, despite the fact that I'm not in pain. I only take it as prescribed .

Your pathetic comments attempting to admitting that I have shredded your ridiculous defense of everything the President and his staff are correct in the attack on the FBI and Mueller.

C.H. Truth said...

Well Roger...

I can listen to an addict who believes it's a good idea for him to be taking an opioid painkiller...

Or I can listen to actual military leaders.

"The rules of engagement under the Obama administration were onerous. I mean[,] what are we doing having individual target determination being conducted in the White House, which in some cases adds weeks and weeks[?]" said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, the former head of U.S. Air Force intelligence. "The limitations that were put on actually resulted in greater civilian casualties." ...

Deptula thinks the ISIS fight would have ended much sooner if then-[p]resident Obama had given his military commander in the field more authority. He compared President Obama's actions to President Lyndon B. Johnson during the Vietnam War.

"Obama micromanaged the war," Deptula said. "We could have accomplished our objectives through the use of overwhelming air power in three months[,] not in three years."

Deptula said ISIS-controlled oil supplies weren't targeted for 15 months beginning in 2014, giving the terror group $800 million in much needed revenue to plot attacks and enslave millions of innocents.

Anonymous said...

CS Los 150,000 high earners in 2016.

SALT CAP, might be a wake up Alarm to the bumping up to or exceeding that gratuitous CAP to elect officials that will reduce taxes.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I noted that Obama did error in his control of the military conduct operations without direct approval of the operations.

But we have suffered the greatest number of military casualties since 2009. We have hundreds of troops in multiple countries that you and I don't know about.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
I'm not addicted asshole.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


not addicted, alky?

you've been on them for 5 YEARS. presumably for back pain.

i too suffer from back pain, alky. i treat mine with occasional ibuprofen or naproxen and daily sessions on my inversion table.

narcotics are a crutch for those whose life is just one big personal failure.





wphamilton said...

Just the facts, for you folks who think there have been nothing but trivial book-keeping errors. Beyond this list, you should also be aware that tax evasion charges take longer to construct, since it's required to work through IRS red tape. Highly likely that tax evasion, among other things, will be forthcoming for at least Manafort.

Flynn: Making false statements to the FBI.

Manafort: Conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, four counts of failing to file (your so-called "process crimes"), one count of unregistered foreign agent, false and misleading FARA statements, false statements to Justice.

Gates: almost the same counts as Manfort

Papadopoulos: lying to the FBI about his meeting with a man with substantial ties to the Russian government.

Anonymous said...

HB, again. Damn!
Obimbo defeated ISIS. Sure, better double your 15 pill a day habit.

C.H. Truth said...

Highly likely that tax evasion

Darn it... I keep forgetting that the legal definition of tax evasion is "collusion with the Russians".

Myballs said...

Lying to the FBI isn't much to hang your hat on.

We've seen more collusion from the clinton campaign. And at least as much lying to the FBI, only without the charges. Hmmm, i can't imagine why.

Loretta said...

"Darn it... I keep forgetting that the legal definition of tax evasion is "collusion with the Russians"."

LMAO.

wphamilton said...

Lying to the FBI isn't much to hang your hat on. but cooperating witness is.

We've seen more collusion from the clinton campaign. so investigate and charge them. It's technically within the Special Investigator's mandate.

But with all this, we're talking about the Trump campaign, not Clinton.

wphamilton said...

Well, if you're evading taxes on money laundered from the Russians, and it's a payoff for something, perhaps that is the legal definition.

Loretta said...

"Well, if you're evading taxes on money laundered from the Russians, and it's a payoff for something, perhaps that is the legal definition."

Which ALL allegedly happened years ago...before the campaign.

Loretta said...

Hey Rat!

Do you suppose an inversion table would make me taller?

😁

C.H. Truth said...

Well, if you're evading taxes on money laundered from the Russians,

You mean money earned from consulting contracts with Ukrainians?

Consulting = laundering
Ukrainians = Russians

This must be one of them there examples of how to "connect the dots" !!!

Myballs said...

But Mueller's team of hillary supporters don't want to investigate her campaign. They'd all rather investigate anything trump related, regardless of its irrelevance to last year's campaign.

wphamilton said...

Which ALL allegedly happened years ago...before the campaign.

Good point, no straw-man like the others on this list.

My reasoning is that a high US government official is on Russia's payroll, even a few years ago, he's still going to be working with them. That's an "if" and a supposition, but it's likely and the plausibility gives central relevance to tax evasion charges.

One reason I say Manafort is "likely" to be charged with tax evasion are the descriptions of the crime, and the emphasis, in the charging document. There isn't any evident reason for it, other than goundwork for subsequent charges. It doesn't help the case on the other charges, doesn't discredit Manafort more than without them. Manafort was in a hurry to charge him, to pressure Flynn and others, and it could still be months before the tax evasion case is made. Fraud goes hand in hand with that. They are all stepping stones to tighten a legal vice, and we're still on the first couple of stones.

Myballs said...

Wp tries to mold process charges into nonevidenced collusion charges but accuses others of straw man arguments.

That's nice.

Commonsense said...

Pretty sure Manafort and Gates will be acquitted. The consensus his that Muller's indictment strains credibility.

Commonsense said...

One of the prerequisites of a money laundering charge is that the source of the "dirty money" mist be illegal to begin with.

All the money Mueller is charging was laundered came from legal enterprises.

Anonymous said...

Loretta said...
Hey Rat!

Do you suppose an inversion table would make me taller?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

worth a shot, but be careful what you wish for. you could lose all that leg room on your hoveround.

Anonymous said...

Hillary and the FBI paid for the fake Dossier.

Anonymous said...

Oh hell. Funny. Ette do you have snow tires on your hoveround?

wphamilton said...

The IRS uses money laundering statutes to combat tax evasion. Additionally the Manafort charging document lists several crimes (primarily related to tax evasion) as the foundation for an accusation of money laundering. It's not at all unusual.

There is little chance, no consensus, that Manafort will be acquitted.

wphamilton said...

For example,

In the Yusuf case unpaid taxes from a false filing were "proceeds" for purposes of the federal international money laundering statute. It can go either way, but like Manafort, the Yusuf case also involved international transfer of funds, and the unlawful activity is tax evasion.

https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2011/feb/salzman-feb11.html

wphamilton said...

Anonymous Myballs said...
Wp tries to mold process charges into nonevidenced collusion charge


First check the list of charges that I compiled, next thread down.

Second, I demonstrated how tax evasion charges can become of central relevance to coordination with the Russians. I haven't "molded" anything. What you did there, mischaracterizing something I wrote, is a classic straw man argument.

Commonsense said...

The IRS uses money laundering statutes to combat tax evasion.

Then the charge would be tax evasion not money laundering.

Trouble is, all of the income was reported to the IRS (which is how Mueller found).

To recap:

1. Money came from legal sources.
2. The money was reported to the IRS.

I'd say chances for acquittal are pretty good.

Myballs said...

Except that I didn't mischaracterize. You are trying to associate tax evasion charges that have nothing to do with the 2016 presidential campaign and tell us that they magically 'can become' so. That is the straw man argument.

Anonymous said...




when all is said and done it matters not if a crime has actually even been committed. scooter libby did NOTHING wrong. not a thing. but democrats needed a scalp so a scalp was provided.

mueller's "case" is the same. if you're reduced to setting perjury traps and pursuing other nickledick charges, you telling us you have nothing and you're keeping this joke rolling until the 2018 midterms to help the democrats.

Anonymous said...


Except that I didn't mischaracterize. You are trying to associate tax evasion charges that have nothing to do with the 2016 presidential campaign and tell us that they magically 'can become' so. That is the straw man argument.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

he's been pounding square pegs into round holes ever since trump was elected.

and he's been setting trolling traps like mueller has been setting perjury traps.

Commonsense said...

The money laundering statute targets financial transactions involving the proceeds of “specified unlawful activity.” According to the Manafort indictment, the unlawful activity was his violation of the U.S. Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

The money laundering statute targets financial transactions involving the proceeds of “specified unlawful activity.” According to the Manafort indictment, the unlawful activity was his violation of the U.S. Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

Though the money laundering statute includes FARA violations, Seattle tax lawyer John Colvin said the charge against Manafort was not as straightforward as most other cases.

“It doesn’t fit the normal paradigm” of money-laundering cases involving criminal activity like drug trafficking, Colvin said. “It seems like a stretch to me.”

Downing said in his Thursday filing that only six prosecutions have been brought for violating FARA in the last 50 years, producing only one conviction.

By pointing out the lack of previous FARA prosecutions, former federal prosecutor Mark Lee, now a white-collar defense lawyer in Philadelphia, said Downing was likely trying to suggest Manafort may not even have known he was violating the law. The section cited by Mueller requires the FARA violation to be “knowing and willful.”

Successfully casting doubt on whether Manafort intentionally violated FARA could knock out the money laundering charge, Lee said.

“If you don’t have a (specific unlawful activity), you can’t by definition have a laundering,” said Lee.


Calling it a stretch is too kind.

This charge is so tenuous that it can be rightly be charaterized as procutorial abuse.

wphamilton said...


1. Money came from legal sources.
2. The money was reported to the IRS.


1. Perhaps, perhaps not. Manafort obviously would claim that. Yet in the charging document, Manafort is accused of fraudulently obtaining loans to obtain cash in the United States. That would be "illegal".

2. Not according to the charging document, which claims that he and Gates "(hid) Ukraine payments from United States authorities", "concealed from the United States their work as agents of, and millions of dollars in payments from, Ukraine", and "MANAFORT laundered more than $18,000,000 ... income that he concealed from the United States Treasury"

So your version is disputed by the alleged facts of the Indictment.

Incidentally, none of what I described here can be called "process crimes".

Commonsense said...

See above. The only "crime" is failure to file the correct paperwork.

Even an Obama judge would see the absurdity of the charge.

wphamilton said...

Downing, Manafort's lawyer, can of course be expected to make such pronouncements. Colvin is looking at the FARA laws as the expected basis. To that extent he's right since there are few if any convictions on FARA violations. But the charging document describes other crimes.

That whole argument is tenuous, because he only attacks what is most likely tangential to the hypothetical case of money laundering.

wphamilton said...

Hiding millions from the IRS, and obtaining fraudulent loans, aren't really crimes in your book??

Commonsense said...

Really WP if this wasn't a public political witch hunt no prosecutor would ever file these charges.

He did it to intimidate Manafort and Gates into cooperating.

However, unlike Flynn they have the financial wereforall to fight the charges.

So all Mueller did was make them martyrs.

wphamilton said...

Even your own cited argument contradicts you:

Several lawyers noted that, even without the money laundering counts, Mueller had strong charges based on the failure of Manafort and Gates to report their overseas accounts to the Internal Revenue Service and that the entirety of the case appeared to be backed by strong documentary evidence. They also pointed out that Mueller could add more charges at a later date.

“It’s an argument, not a get out of jail free card,” said Padula of Downing’s money laundering defense. “He’s still got a tough road ahead of him.”

wphamilton said...

"Strong charges", CS. "Failed to report" - he did NOT report the income to the IRS. From your own article the consensus, if any, appears to be that Manafort is in trouble.

Commonsense said...

Hiding millions from the IRS

As stated previously nothing was hidden from the IRS. And there is no information on "fraudulent loans".

The whole theory on the money laundering charge is based in their failure to register as a foreign agent.

And Mueller has to prove they "willfully" failed to register instead of mistakenly failing to register as require by the law. (good luck with that)

Otherwise, the whole case falls apart.

Anonymous said...


so when boiled down to it's essence, mueller's entire case against manafort is built upon the foundation of a "crime" that is never pursued or charged to begin with.

so yes, by all means, let's keep this farce rolling until election day 2018.

Loretta said...

"Incidentally, none of what I described here can be called "process crimes"."

Incidentally, none of what is alleged happened during the campaign, under Trump's watch or guidance.

No dots to connect sure sucks for you.

Anonymous said...

Hiding millions from the IRS, and obtaining fraudulent loans, aren't really crimes in your book??
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


sure they are, wp.

i tend to prefer that the crimes be actually committed by someone though. that's my standard prerequisite when it comes to crime.

wphamilton said...

Martyr in whose eyes? Pakistani ISI who paid him for a disinformation campaign 1990-94? His arms-dealer friends in Lebanon, who paid him in the underground submarine sale to Pakistan? The Marcos family, or Mobutu the dictator of Congo? Oh I guess Manafort is a martyr for any number of the torturers listed in the Center for Public Integrity report "The Torturer's Lobby", which had him as in the top 5 lobbyists for human-rights abusing regimes.

I don't know about you, but I'm not that concerned about that group getting all stirred up because their pal Paul is facing charges. Or are you saying that he's some kind of hero even outside of the totalitarian psycho club, and his faithful will rally to his standard?

Commonsense said...

Mueller's charges are house of cards. Pull one out and it all falls apart.

Commonsense said...

Martyr in whose eyes?

Anybody fair enough to spot malicious prosecution.

Myballs said...

The real farce is why sessions doesn't reopen all the phoney hillary investigations. What is he waiting for?

Anonymous said...

I don't know about you, but I'm not that concerned about that group getting all stirred up because their pal Paul is facing charges. Or are you saying that he's some kind of hero even outside of the totalitarian psycho club, and his faithful will rally to his standard?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


wow.

sounds serious.

let me know how and when any of that rant tracks back to trump colluding with russia, russia, russia...

because we were told that that's what mueller was appointed to investigate.

or you can just choose to same time and admit this entire thing has been utter bullshit from day one, and a temper tantrum because hillary lost an election that she was supposed to win.

pro tip - if you want to make this about manafort then actually go after manafort. stop bullshitting everyone that trump is some evil mastermind and all of these folks are getting caught up in some sort of extensive and elaborate dragnet with trump as its nucleus.

it's becoming fucking laughable.

wphamilton said...

Incidentally, none of what is alleged happened during the campaign, under Trump's watch or guidance.

People keep saying that, but check it out with your own eyes:

Part 1 of the indictment claims the laundering was ongoing "through at least 2016".

Part 3 claims that the lying to Justice occurred in 2016

Part 14 claims fraud occurring through 2017

The events through these dates are all documented in the indictment. That describes an overlap with the time of Trump's campaign. Whether any of that occurred under Trump's auspices remains to be seen. But part 38 says he was obstructing a Justice investigation in 2017, which no doubt Mueller would like to tie to Trump. We shall see.

wphamilton said...

Myballs said...
The real farce is why sessions doesn't reopen all the phoney hillary investigations. What is he waiting for?


Good question. Either he doesn't want to, or someone in Justice is blocking him, or Trump doesn't want him to, or he simply can't. I'd like to know why also.

Anonymous said...

That describes an overlap with the time of Trump's campaign.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


shit.

it also overlaps with a time that i was (and am still) alive.

you too CS and loretta.

looks like we had better lawyer up.

wphamilton said...

let me know how and when any of that rant tracks back to trump colluding with russia, russia, russia...because we were told that that's what mueller was appointed to investigate.

And anything that arises from the investigation. What are you complaining about, do you LIKE having people like that having strong influnce over our President? Is he a martyr hero for you, rrb?

Rest assured, if and when any of that tracks back to Trump, you'll hear about it.

Commonsense said...

Session recuse himself from all issues relating to the 2016 campaign. That would include the Clinton investigation.

And Rosenstein has no stomach for it.

wphamilton said...

rrb pulling up lame said ... it also overlaps with a time that i was (and am still) alive. looks like we had better lawyer up.

Because Manafort is some random guy venting opinions on the internet, not like he ever had anything to do with Trump's campaign or advising Presidents or anything ... right?

Anonymous said...


Rest assured, if and when any of that tracks back to Trump, you'll hear about it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


oh it will. that's already baked into the deal. and they'll call it an "october surprise."

LOL.

good God this is such a fucking farce, but it is amusing watching do your phony righteous indignation bit.can you keep it going until election day? mueller needs you to.



Loretta said...

"The charges are related to his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and do not cover any activities related to the 2016 Trump campaign.[110]"

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html

wphamilton said...

stop bullshitting everyone that trump is some evil mastermind

You never heard that from me! I think he's a rich dumb person, who admires Manafort and the list of authoritarians he served, and he unfortunately hires crooked immoral types. And family members, if there's a difference. He might be owned by Putin, maybe not and he just hero-worships him, the jury is still out on that.

Anonymous said...

Because Manafort is some random guy venting opinions on the internet, not like he ever had anything to do with Trump's campaign or advising Presidents or anything ... right?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

relax, wp. mueller will make SURE manafort had something to do with it. let me repeat:

that's already baked into the deal. and they'll call it an "october surprise."

the hardest part of the whole deal will be maintaining a steady flow of FRESH bullshit until the midterms. exhibit A: "trump is going to fire mueller!"

pure bullshit. i saw through it the moment it was uttered. in fact, it defies logic. mueller is looking more like an assclown with each passing day. you don't fire a guy who's making you look GOOD and himself look foolish.

so anyway, care to predict the next pile of bullshit that will be peddled to keep this clown show moving? we have ten months to go.

Anonymous said...


You never heard that from me! I
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

you might as well have said it. you're carrying so much water for mueller and the dems you need a fucking tanker truck to haul it all around.



He might be owned by Putin, maybe not and he just hero-worships him, the jury is still out on that.

oh for chrissakes. this old trope? i figured you for a guy smart enough to distinguish acknowledgement of strong leadership from hero worship. that a bucket of stupid i expect to tumble out of roger's pie hole.

I acknowledge putin to be a very strong and capable politician and leader. and a murderous tyrant. and an evil man. and a guy who had BHO bent over for 4+ years as he did donuts on the white house lawn whenever the hell he pleased.

.


wphamilton said...

"The charges are related to his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and do not cover any activities related to the 2016 Trump campaign.[110]

Read the actual document, from the link I provided. "The charges" referred to there, are not the same as "everything alleged" as you referred to above. Tax evasion, and fraud, are not yet charged. Obstructing justice will never be related to the Trump Campaign, until and unless such time as his report concludes and recommends charges related to Trump.

Loretta said...

Something to do with Kushner.

wphamilton said...

Sounds like hero-worship to me. or it could be more Trump's bullshitting, I can't tell when everything he says sounds like bullshit.

Putin has done “a really great job outsmarting our country.”

"“Well, he’s done an amazing job of taking the mantle,” Trump said. “And he’s taken it away from the President, and you look at what he’s doing. And so smart."

"EXCELLENT WATCHING PUTIN'S BRILLIANCE "

“When I went to Russia with the Miss Universe pageant, (Putin) contacted me and was so nice. I mean, the Russian people were so fantastic to us,” he said on “Fox and Friends.” “I’ll just say this, they are doing – they’re outsmarting us at many turns, as we all understand. I mean, their leaders are, whether you call them smarter or more cunning or whatever, but they’re outsmarting us"

Anonymous said...

Putin has done “a really great job outsmarting our country.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

well, BHO certainly did "have a lot more flexibility after his reelection."

trump's not wrong, wp. did he embellish or bullshit as you call it. sure he did. but he uttered no falsehoods. nor did he please putin by approving arm sales to ukraine. but next you'll tell us he approved the sale as a head fake to throw mueller off his trail.

heh.


C.H. Truth said...

WP...

I read the same article as you did from the Daily Beast regarding the idea that Mueller's indictment is a precursor to other crimes being charged over the top. Of course if such logic was that obvious, I would think that a whole slew of legal experts other than those from the Daily Beast would have figured that all out by now.

Also, the reasoning that Special Counsel Mueller cannot get the wheels of justice to grind their way through the process of making a tax charge within the period of time they have been investigating Manafort and Gates... seems a little far fetched. After all the FBI has literally been investigating Manafort off and on for years, and the "raid" was over five months ago now.

While it might be one explanation as to why Mueller chose to bring up
potential tax charges (without actually referencing any charges)... it's hardly the only explanation available.


Also, you seem to act as if Manafort has already been declared guilty simply because he has been accused. Your entire argument is based on the idea that Manafort is not only guilty of what he has been charged with (even though he has not even stood trial)... but that he is also guilty of charges that he hasn't been charged with.

Do you not see a presumption issue with this?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Putin effected the US Election in only the States that were to give the Victory to Hillary. Think, those States where mainly, fomerly Democrat Blue States, but then the unthinkable happened, they were mind warped, change from clear thinking, rational Democrat Voting Adults to stupid uninformed man/woman-children and Voted Trump.

wphamilton said...

I would think that a whole slew of legal experts other than those from the Daily Beast would have figured that all out by now.

I don't read the Daily Beast, but I'd say that "legal experts" are about 3-1 against you from what I've seen.

Also, you seem to act as if Manafort has already been declared guilty simply because he has been accused. Your entire argument is based on the idea that Manafort is not only guilty of what he has been charged with (even though he has not even stood trial).

That's up to a judge, to declare him guilty. For the rest of us, he's almost certainly guilty and anyone who accepts that would be stupid to reason from the basis that he's innocent as long as he hasn't been tried. The rational question is whether, how and how much his criminal behavior has intersected with Trump.

C.H. Truth said...

but I'd say that "legal experts" are about 3-1 against you from what I've seen.

Yet, you've quoted none.

That's up to a judge, to declare him guilty.

Pretty sure it's a jury that makes that determination...

For the rest of us

You and all of the other voices in your head?

Anonymous said...



wp serves as a reminder that if nixon was a democrat he would've served a full two terms.


wphamilton said...

Yet, you've quoted none.

I just got finished quoting several from an article CS cited, where like you he was claiming that "the consensus" expected complete acquittal of Manafort. As it turns out, the same article cited numerous experts, and the one lawyer CS was citing had focused weirdly on FARA exclusively.

Pretty sure it's a jury that makes that determination..

You can't help but snipe can you? Manafort can request a bench trial if he wants, and he probably should if you were right that every lawyer out there believes that by a matter of law there is no viable case.

You and all of the other voices in your head?

I'll take that as surrender.

wphamilton said...

wp serves as a reminder that if nixon was a democrat he would've served a full two terms.

Don't you have that backwards? I see people here trying to exonerate criminals, while I and a few others simply want to see the impartial investigation through.

Reminds me of President Grant's terms, not just the corruption and nepotism but Trump's executive style and limitations are so similar.

Commonsense said...

I just got finished quoting several from an article CS cited

The experts you were quoting were just repeating unproven accusations. It's not surprising you focus on unproven accusations instead of the indictment itself.

the one lawyer CS was citing had focused weirdly on FARA exclusively.

Because the indictment itself said FARA violation was the justification for the money laundering charges.

Which is why the entire case will fall apart.

wphamilton said...

Because the indictment itself said FARA violation was the justification for the money laundering charges.

We (including the article in question and the tax lawyer cited therein) were talking about the potential tax evasion charges.

The indictment does not say that FAR is the sole basis for money laundering, far from it. The entire document is replete with documented proof of Manafort's failure to report to the IRS the movement of vast sums of money. Failure to report income. It cites not only FARA but also fraud and tax evasion as the "illegal proceeds" required for money laundering. There is ample precedent for that, including the Federal case that I have cited.

Legal experts, and I concur, contend that the case is well documented and Manafort faces a difficult defense. That defense on purely legal grounds is weak, desperate, and unlikely.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

It's obvious that Manafort and Gates (like Podesta and others) are guilty of not filing the proper paperwork. Nobody that I know of has suggested otherwise.

But what legal experts have properly and accurately stated is that prosecutors nearly never bring these charges (and in fact Mueller and gang allowed Podesta and his group to retroactively fill out several years worth of paperwork in August of 2017 - rather than charge them). Moreover, what legal experts have also shown is that the only person ever found guilty of those specific charges was sentenced to one year, and was also found guilty of many other transgressions.

When you read people like Andrew McCarthy and others who have experience in the prosecution field, they are suggesting that Mueller is "overcharging" for purposes of shock value, pressure, and possibly to provide the media fodder to suggest that they have more than they do.

Obviously, the timing of the Manafort indictment came when questions about the potency of the Mueller investigation were dominating the news. It leads to suspicion that Mueller tossed some shit together to make himself look like he was getting somewhere. This would be "reinforced" by recent suggestions from the Daily Beast that he will be "adding charges" at a later date (if you are so inclined to believe them). Why make a partial indictment at that point, when you didn't have all your ducks in a row?

To most objective observers, bringing charges with the intention of adding charges at a later date makes no real legal sense. The only explanations I have read is about playing mind games with the person you are charging. All about style over substance.


But ultimately, what is still very mysterious to many is what exactly Mueller has uncovered that previous FBI investigations into Manafort's activities have not. These bank transfers have been well known to the FBI and other authorities for years. They have been previously investigated and the decisions were made previously not to prosecute them.

So while it's possible that Mueller uncovered some new information, it seems like it "could" be a situation where he decided to pursue what others decided was a weak case, because he has unlimited resources and maybe (like it appeared he did with Flynn) he can just bully them into some sort of plea to avoid the millions in legal fees to defend themselves.

Commonsense said...

We (including the article in question and the tax lawyer cited therein) were talking about the potential tax evasion charges

We were talking about money laundering charges.

The indictment does not say that FAR is the sole basis for money laundering, far from it.

FAR is the linchpin of the entire case. If they can't prove a willful attempt to deceive then all the other alleges activities are not necessarily illegal.

To say the indictment is a stretch is understating it.

C.H. Truth said...

Btw... WP....

The general consensus of your article is that there are two competing Circuit Court decisions, but that ultimately Congress has the final say:

Tax crimes are not among those listed as specific unlawful activity in the money laundering statute. See Section 1956(c)(7). Indeed, Congress explicitly noted that tax evasion, unlike other crimes, does not have any clearly identifiable “proceeds” as that term is used in the money laundering statute. S. Rep. 99-433, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (1986). Consequently, defrauding the government of tax revenues does not generate proceeds of specified unlawful activity, and the monetary transactions here did not fall within the ambit of the money laundering statute. 47


Then according to the 2009 amendment:

The language of the amendment does little to answer questions raised in Yusuf. It does not address whether tax savings or tax liabilities avoided could ever be proceeds subject to the money laundering statute. A draft version of the bill would have amended the international money laundering statute to make it apply to cases of tax evasion. 49 However, that change was not included in the final version of FERA.


So ultimately, it looks like the law states that tax evasion is not necessarily subject to money laundering. The drafts of a 2009 amendment included (at one time) language that would change that... but it was left out. The fact that it was suggested as part of a new bill means that they believed that the current law did not make tax evasion a part of money laundering. The fact that they left out that portion, suggests that Congress did not intend to include it.


Obviously there is interpretation to it... but I don't think your article proves what you are claiming.

C.H. Truth said...

From your article:

Given this deletion from the statutory language ultimately enacted into law, a reasonable interpretation of the legislative history of FERA would be that Congress appears to have rejected the notion that tax evasion could result in proceeds for purposes of the money laundering statute. This would be consistent with language in the 1986 legislative history to the money laundering statute that “tax evasion, unlike other crimes, does not have any clearly identifiable ‘proceeds.’” 50 Moreover, consistent with prior interpretations of the money laundering statute as reflected in Department of Justice policies, 51 in FERA Congress also cautioned prosecutors against prosecuting money laundering in combination with certain other offenses. 52

C.H. Truth said...

Also - the Mueller suggestion of fraudulent loans, suggests that Manafort took out loans on property purchased from the money in question.

From a bank's standpoint, the collateral exists, and it's legally owned by the person who took out the loan. This would literally be like saying that if you broke the law, that literally anything you did with the money obtained would be another act of breaking the law. Every time you purchased something, paid for something, or made any sort of financial transaction... it would all be considered "fraudulent" activity.

Is that really the legal concept that you are attempting to argue here?

While one might believe it might be "just" to do so... make every purchase of a drug deal (for instance) a criminal act (because the money was obtained criminally)... there certainly does not appear to be any precedent for it.

wphamilton said...

So ultimately, it looks like the law states that tax evasion is not necessarily subject to money laundering.

Yet it was, in the case of Yusef. I have already explained to you that it can go either way depending on the details. In Yusef there was an movement of international moneys, which triggers a slightly different standard in the statute than purely domestic.

Yusef is case law, CH.

Also - the Mueller suggestion of fraudulent loans, suggests that Manafort took out loans on property purchased from the money in question.

It wasn't just "suggested" - it was flat out alleged and (minus your attempted whitewash of the "fraud" portion) given as the explicit basis.

You're trying to make a purely rhetorical defense. "Suggests", ignoring the actual basis of the fraud etc. That sort of thing is trivially disposed in an argument before the court. Manafort made false claims about his property, and the intended use of it, for example, to fraudulently obtain the loan. He obtained another loan by fraudulently claiming it was for construction when he was using it to pay off another mortgage and to make a down payment on another property. Fraudulent loans - your objection about what "money" was used to purchase the original property is irrelevant.

wphamilton said...

make every purchase of a drug deal (for instance) a criminal act (because the money was obtained criminally)... there certainly does not appear to be any precedent for it.

Seriously? That is the purpose of the current form of our money laundering statutes. Maybe you can't prove that the kingpin was personally involved in buying or selling the drugs, but you know he wound up with the money so you can nail him on money laundering.

Where did you get this idea that there's no precedent??

wphamilton said...

I can see how, if a person doesn't understand much about the law on money laundering, tax evasion, and established precedent, and also overlooks the more serious allegations in an indictment, he might believe that there's nothing to fear for Manafort.

It's probably a fairly widespread condition, especially among those who are inclined to take seriously public statements from the defendants' lawyers. I can only suggest to those people: wait and see how it's argued in court, by the true experts.

C.H. Truth said...

Well WP...

Neither of us is a defense attorney who works in the area of criminal law, much less criminal law as it pertains to money laundering, or tax evasion.

Even in making your argument, you admit that the charges of money laundering based on tax evasion could "go either way"...

Moreover, it would appear that the Yusuf case determined that the actual issue was "mail fraud" as the concept that it was filed through "the mail" seems to be relevant. This, btw, strikes a remarkable resemblance to the movie "The Firm" with Tom Cruise making a similar argument that over billing becomes a felony when the bills were sent through the mail.

The Khanani case was more straight forward in stating that unpaid taxes were not proceeds for the purposes of money laundering.

Even if everything was equal... The conclusion from the experts from the link you provide suggests that the "law" in this case seems to side with the argument that tax evasion is not a cause for money laundering charges.



All of this is working on the assumption that Manafort will sometime in the future be charged with tax evasion... which is not a foregone conclusion.

C.H. Truth said...

Seriously? That is the purpose of the current form of our money laundering statutes. Maybe you can't prove that the kingpin was personally involved in buying or selling the drugs, but you know he wound up with the money so you can nail him on money laundering.

Again... Money laundering is the attempt to hide that money.

It's not the action of spending it on otherwise legal transactions.

wphamilton said...

OK one last time, let me clear this up in case we ever use the phrase "money laundering" again.

You get partial credit, but you're still way short. Money laundering is not "the attempt to hide money" although that's part of it. It is not "the action of spending it" although that can also be part of it. Spending it on "otherwise legal" transactions is not any part of it.

More precisely, money laundering requires:

* Proceeds (money or property) from an illegal act

AND another transaction which EITHER:

* carries on the illegal act or violates IRS code.
OR
* is designed to conceal the source and nature of the proceeds, or avoid a reporting requirement.


So I hope that you can see that money laundering requires an initial act producing money to begin with, and then either hides it, facilitates the illegal act, or violates IRS code. So no, it is not simply "hiding money".

I hope that you can also see that spending it on even a completely legal transaction can be designed to conceal the origin, so whether or not the spending is legal is irrelevant. Except when it facilitates the original action.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

I think my point here is this is not an obvious or simple case to make here. Everything about it, requires a certain loose interpretation of the law in favor of the prosecution... starting with the fact that the money earned by Manafort and Gates is from consulting fees... which in and of itself it not illegally obtained money.

The action of declaring it to be illegal in the first place requires the dubious argument (that you admit could go either way) about tax evasion. There are competing court cases, but certainly the law itself appears to favor the defense.

That is the first major hurdle that prosecutor would have to establish. If they cannot declare these consulting fees to be considered illegally obtained money, then doesn't the entire money laundering charge fall apart?

Secondly, the bank transactions in question were not hidden and not secret. Those transactions are reported to the Government. The issue is that like most people in that business (Including the Podesta Group) - they didn't fill out the proper paperwork. So it seems dubious to me that they made bank transfers that are tracked by the Government... as a means to hide money from legal consulting fees.

At this point in time, I withhold my judgement as to whether or not Mueller is going to charge Manafort with tax evasion. Clearly he implies it, but he does so in such a manner that could also be suggesting that Manafort's "lavish lifestyle" and "expensive purchases" were being just being written off as business expenses in a manner that Mueller deems to be inappropriate or otherwise shady.

Have you considered the possibility that this language was as much about convincing a grand jury to indict on these charges... as it was some sign that he will be adding charges later?

wphamilton said...

The action of declaring it to be illegal in the first place requires the dubious argument (that you admit could go either way) about tax evasion.

There is far too much precedent for you to label it "dubious". It is the normal, accepted case that illegally obtained funds from tax evasion can be the basis for money laundering. It can go the other way under specific circumstances (which don't apply with Manafort).

Have you considered the possibility that this language was as much about convincing a grand jury to indict on these charges... as it was some sign that he will be adding charges later?

No, that would be a silly thing to consider.