Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Time to give Trump Presidency it's own Thread.Follow

#603 Oct 31 2017 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
It should TOTALLY be crooked Hillary and the dems though.
Well, that might be the next investigation after this one is settled. Figure the FBI will be busy for the foreseeable future.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#604 Oct 31 2017 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,407 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
It should TOTALLY be crooked Hillary and the dems though.
Well, that might be the next investigation after this one is settled. Figure the FBI will be busy for the foreseeable future.
It really is remarkable job security for this day and age.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#605 Oct 31 2017 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Interesting thing about Papadopolous taking a plea is that the FBI is only interested if they think you have creditable information on people up the ladder. If he didn't know anything, the FBI wouldn't have struck a deal.


Or they don't have anything on anyone, and this was the best they could get. The whole thing is media driven and they're under pressure to find "something". So far, this is pretty darn weak sauce though. So they dug far enough back in Manafort to find some misfiled paperwork from 10 years ago (not saying he didn't deliberately misfile his status though, but still), and some guy that most people went "George who?" to, who apparently tried to set up a meeting with a Russian, failed, and then also failed to tell the FBI that he did so. Which, um, sounds suspiciously exactly like the whole "Russian woman who claimed to have dirt on Clinton but really wanted to talk about adoption, so we bailed on the meeting, and never gave it another thought" deal.

Still nothing remotely close to the claimed collusion though. I get that this gets a bit lost in the media hype, but there's nothing at all wrong with speaking with folks from other countries while running a campaign. And there's certainly nothing innately wrong with speaking with anyone who claims to have dirt on your opponent, no matter what country they are from.

What's funny about this is that the absolute worst we've seen from Trump is that they did the same thing the Clinton campaign did (seek out foreign parties who might have dirt on the other side), with the noticeable difference that the Trump camp doesn't seem to have actually used anything they may have obtained, while the Clinton camp didn't hesitate to latch onto the weakest thing they could find, and then launder that out there through online media (ie: fake news). The Trump side seems to have been approaching this in an above board manner, while Clinton and the DNC were pulling some pretty shady stuff.

But it's Trump who was working with the Russians, right? Not the woman who handed Putin the reset button, and pulled us out of Eastern Europe. Nope. No quid to that pro quo at all. And not the party that handed Russia massive influence in the Middle East. Nope. And not the party that the Russian government has been spending millions supporting via online propaganda efforts for well over a decade. Nope. And hey, I'm sure there was nothing at all to Obama telling Putin that he'd have more flexibility after wining the election, while Russia was engaging in that propaganda. Nope. No quid pro quo there either.

And that's before getting into the whole $145 million in donations to the Clinton foundation in the years leading up to Clinton overseeing the sale of vast amounts of US uranium to the very Russian company who's board members made those donations. Nope. Nothing to see there either. It's all on the up and up! We just happened to do just what the Russians wanted, right after they padded our pockets with a boat load of cash. I'm sure those were just random unrelated things.


But hey. Someone in the Trump campaign may have... gasp... talked to a Russian. Quick! Open up an investigation. Examine everything they've ever done in their lives. Examine everyone they've talked to, or worked with, or had any dealings with. There must be "something" to find!

This is getting insane.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#609 Oct 31 2017 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Interesting thing about Papadopolous taking a plea is that the FBI is only interested if they think you have creditable information on people up the ladder. If he didn't know anything, the FBI wouldn't have struck a deal.
Or they don't have anything on anyone, and this was the best they could get.

No, Papadopolous flipped and took a plea bargain in return for getting additional evidence on other people. If he didn't have any information on anyone (and couldn't get any) then he wouldn't have been able to strike a bargain. This is some pretty basic stuff: you get caught, you say you can provide other (better) info on (better) people, you come through and THEN the FBI recommends to the judge that you get a wrist slap since you've been cooperating with the investigation. If you can't come through, you get nothing. Papadopolous was recommended for a wrist slap -- he came through.

Come on now, I know you're speaking out your partisan ass and the GOP is in full panic damage control mode now but use your brain for half a second: If this was the only thing they had, why would they water down the charges for their only result from the investigation?

Anyway, have fun swearing that there's nothing, nothing! at all to find.

Edited, Oct 31st 2017 7:46pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#612 Oct 31 2017 at 6:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Gotta figure Manafort will be as well, as much as the right has distanced themselves from him over the last couple of months.


I know that the left has an obsession about Manafort, but the guy hasn't had any role in anything at all related to the Trump campaign, transition, or administration, for over 14 months. They literally hired him for his convention expertise, and then let him go about a month after the convention was over and they needed to move on to the general election. We can speculate about why, but it's possible that they realized he had some questionable dealings in his past, and didn't want anything to do with him.

Which is in marked contrast to the "circle the wagons" approach the Dems use. The Clintons are the Podestas are at least as dirty in terms of deals with foreign powers as Manafort. The key difference being that the GOP dropped Manafort, while the DEMs ran one as their nominee and the others brother as chief of staff. One might start to get the hint that the GOP at least makes an effort avoid this sort of thing.

Quote:
Don't think he has any friends in high places any more. Hillary's cronies seem to be better at hiding their shady ****, or maybe just not being openly treasonous with it at the very least. Smiley: rolleyes


They are no better, and arguably a lot worse. There's just a ton of hesitation among the media to talk about their actions, while the exact opposite is true of anyone connected to the political right. This is literally entirely about media coverage driving public opinion, generating public outcry, and in turn driving investigations. Objectively, there's far far more evidence of dirty dealings by the Clinton camp. Heck. We've yet to see anything except the Trump campaign dropping people who don't pass muster.

That's a crime now?

Quote:
Podesta is a bit skittish though, perhaps?


Possibly. Honestly though, I've seen enough of how this goes to see the future here. Let me make a prediction:

They'll never get around to investigating Clinton and her buddies. They'll rake the Trump administration over the coals for as long as they can, drag it out in the media and public eye as long as possible, and get as much political value for the Left as possible, and then drop it (with maybe a few minor charges against some side characters along the way), and then the media story will be that the whole Russian Meddling thing is "old news", and has "already been investigated to death", and "let's just move on", when it comes time to look into anything on Clinton's side of the aisle.

Something new and shiny will come along, and it'll all be swept under the rug. Can't have the Left look bad, after all. We must maintain the illusion that it's the political right that it corrupt and whatnot. Narrative is king!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#615 Oct 31 2017 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Interesting thing about Papadopolous taking a plea is that the FBI is only interested if they think you have creditable information on people up the ladder. If he didn't know anything, the FBI wouldn't have struck a deal.
Or they don't have anything on anyone, and this was the best they could get.

No, Papadopolous flipped and took a plea bargain in return for getting additional evidence on other people.


You know this, how?

Quote:
If he didn't have any information on anyone (and couldn't get any) then he wouldn't have been able to strike a bargain.


Plea bargain deals are only rarely related to flipping on other people. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it seems just as likely that they had some questionable stuff on him, which may or may not have resulted in any sort of conviction, and he entered a plea for the reason most people do: To avoid a trial. It's entirely possible he could have fought the charges, and possibly even won, but given the past track record of the need to find "someone" to convict in such things (remember Scooter Libby?), he probably read the writing on the wall and coped to a plea. FBI gets a "conviction", and he gets to stay out of jail.

Quote:
This is some pretty basic stuff: you get caught, you say you can provide other (better) info on (better) people, you come through and THEN the FBI recommends to the judge that you get a wrist slap since you've been cooperating with the investigation. If you can't come through, you get nothing. Papadopolous was recommended for a wrist slap -- he came through.


Again. Or there wasn't strong enough evidence to guarantee conviction, so they let him plea it down. Both sides win in that case.

You do know how our legal system works, right?

Quote:
Come on now, I know you're speaking out your partisan ass and the GOP is in full panic damage control mode now but use your brain for half a second: If this was the only thing they had, why would they water down the charges for their only result from the investigation?



Um... Because it's the only thing they have, and they want to get "something" on "someone".

He entered that plea a month ago. If he had turned over on someone, and provided juicy info that would lead to conviction, then why is the big announcement about him and not the person they got the info on? It's clear that the Manafort and Gates stuff is ancient, and unrelated to the Trump campaign itself (and therefore unlikely to have been the result of anything George knew), so where is the result of his flip?

Unlike you, I'm not making any assumptions here. It's entirely possible there is more to come. But I'm not going to assume there is, based on what we've seen. Again, usually when the informant flips to provide evidence against other people, you don't announce the charges against the informant *first*. You keep him in your back pocket until you have your case built against the big fish, and then you go after that person.

The fact that they announced his guilty plea, but no apparent other person that could have been someone he informed on, suggests the opposite of what you're assuming. Again, I have no way to know for sure, but it seems odd that you're so absolutely certain. One of us is engaging in wishful thinking, and I don't think it's me. I'm not stating an absolute here. Just a counter possibility. As I've said, it could just as easily be that he was the only person they could shake out of the entire Trump campaign, who actually did anything during the campaign that could result in charges.

And yeah, I'll take this moment to point out the suspicious similarity to Libby. He's not being charged with (or accused of as far as I know) of "colluding" with Russia in any way. Just making a false statement while being investigated. As I mentioned back in the Plame fishing expedition: When you search hard enough, and question enough people, some of them will make statements that don't match up. And usually it's not because they did anything related to the initial investigation, but they did something that they knew in a given media environment would "look bad" (like you know, even having a conversation with a Russian), so they conceal it. Dumb thing to do, but it happens all the time.

Of course, this trick is helped along by a frenzied media calling out anyone in the group who had any conversation with or related to anything which could be made to look bad. It makes people hide actions which are not themselves illegal or even wrong. My guess is that's exactly what happened with this guy. He was so afraid that if he admitted to meeting with a Russian that it would make him and the campaign and transition team look bad, that he lied about it. And then he got caught.

I'm still waiting for some sort of quid pro quo here though. Haven't seen it yet. I'll make another prediction that we'll never see it. This whole thing is about speculation and innuendo. Nothing more.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#618 Oct 31 2017 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You know this, how?

Don't get your news from anywhere, huh?

Quote:
Plea bargain deals are only rarely related to flipping on other people.

We're talking about an FBI investigation, not your local cops letting you plea down to disorderly conduct to save them a day in court.

Quote:
You do know how our legal system works, right?

Well, one of us does. You, it would seem, tried to piece it together from Law & Order reruns. I'll skip replying to the several paragraphs you spend embarrassing yourself.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#619 Oct 31 2017 at 7:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You know this, how?

Don't get your news from anywhere, huh?


My opinion isn't based on hearing someone talking about it, on a news show or otherwise. It's based on observation of the event itself. Investigators don't usually announce the charges against the informant first, and then later against the guy he informed on.

Quote:
Quote:
Plea bargain deals are only rarely related to flipping on other people.

We're talking about an FBI investigation, not your local cops letting you plea down to disorderly conduct to save them a day in court.


So? The FBI follows the same rules. I'll note you didn't actually dispute what I was saying, just pointed out that the FBI isn't your local cops. That's great and all. Now explain why you think this supports your allegation that he must have flipped.

I'll point out for the third time that you usually don't announce the charges against the guy who plead to flip on someone else, until after you've finished up your investigation on the "someone else".

This smells of "this is all we've got" to me. I could certainly be wrong, but given that Mueller has been under pressure to produce "something", my guess is that this is all he has.

Quote:
Quote:
You do know how our legal system works, right?

Well, one of us does. You, it would seem, tried to piece it together from Law & Order reruns. I'll skip replying to the several paragraphs you spend embarrassing yourself.


And once again with the disparaging comments, while not actually disputing what I said.

Are you actually claiming that the FBI doesn't engage in plea agreements with suspects on the basis of lesser sentence in return for a guilty plea? I mean, it's not like we can't just see what the FBI has to say about it

Quote:

Plea Bargaining

The government and the defendant may agree to forego a trial and have the defendant enter a plea of guilty as part of a plea bargain. A plea bargain is an agreement that the defendant will plead guilty to the original or another charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. Typical concessions include dismissal of other charges or a recommendation to the judge for a particular sentence (or an agreement not to oppose the defendant’s request for a particular sentence). If charges have been filed, a victim will have a reasonable opportunity to confer with the prosecutor before the plea bargain results in a formal guilty plea. Nonetheless, a victim does not have a right to veto the prosecutor’s decision to engage in plea negotiations or to accept a guilty plea from a defendant as part of a plea bargain.

If a plea agreement has been reached, the government and defense counsel present that agreement to the court. A victim may appear in court and make a statement regarding the plea agreement. If the court accepts the agreement, the court will set a date for sentencing and decide whether the defendant should be held in custody until then. The law does not require a federal court to accept a plea agreement. Rather, the court may accept the agreement, reject it, or discuss with the parties alternatives that are acceptable to the court. If the court rejects the plea agreement, the defendant may withdraw the guilty plea, and the case will proceed to trial.



Hey. Look at that. "Typical" concessions sure look like "coping to a lesser charge" to me.

But hey. What do I know right? I should tune into CNN and/or MSNBC to find out the truth. Heck. I know! I'll just see what the late night comedy hosts have to say. I'm sure they've got their fingers on the pulse of the issue.

'
Or... You know. The guy plead guilty for the same reason most people plead guilty: To avoid a trial where he may be convicted of a more serious offense. Again, it's entirely possible that he flipped on someone, and more footwear is going to fall soon. But that would be more like a cop show plot than real life. Right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#623 Oct 31 2017 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
I'll listen to your legal expertise right after the supreme court hears the case about Obama's birth certificate.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#625 Oct 31 2017 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Or the SCotUS rules against same sex marriage! Or Obamacare!

Really, I don't even care that much. I don't need to spew ten paragraphs of frantic denials because I'm fine with waiting for the next wave of events. But keep mentioning late night talk show hosts! You don't sound panicked at all Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#626 Nov 01 2017 at 6:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,413 posts
C'mon, you guys, it's better to be inclusive! I think it's great that his caretakers let him post on the forum. They treat him just like a real adult, despite his *ahem* challenges.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)