Paul Manafort Told to Surrender

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still struggling to see how any of this involves the campaign.

The campaign of which Manafort was chairman? That campaign?

You mean the campaign chairman who was there briefly and then let go?
Still not seeing the connection.

Okay. You don't have to see any connection. This is obviously all NBD to you.

If Mueller is so sharp and there’s such an avalanche of evidence, where is it?

No where.

God, you clearly have no idea how the government builds a case.

If the gov had a case it would not need to build one.

OMG. OMG. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If if's and buts were candy and nuts...

Dcum clutching their nuts extra hard this morning.

LOL, go read paragraph 38 of the indictment and get back to me on that statement.

Non lawyers attempting to downplay these charges is hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This indictment pertains to the campaign. Papadopolous plead guilty,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4163402/Papadopoulos-Statement-Offense.pdf

This is an even bigger deal than Manafort

It happened on Oct 4th. If it’s a big deal, why weren’t we talking about it when it happened?

See the Washington Post article about it in the other thread; and this document was just unsealed today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still struggling to see how any of this involves the campaign.

The campaign of which Manafort was chairman? That campaign?

Yeah, other than being Trump's campaign manager, his indictment doesn't have anything at all to do with Trump.

The tax issues and money laundering occurred years ago. Before Trump.

Ok, what happened in 2016 & 2016?

The documents read from 2006 through 2017....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manafort and Trump have known each other and worked together for over 3 decades.

They both laundered money. This indictment also illustrates to Trump that Mueller knows how to engage in financial forensics and use it in a legal proceeding.

So, let me get this straight.
If your best childhood friend was caught embezzling than, you, as his friend, would also be guilty?
I know how badly you want your statement to be true, but just saying it does not make it so.

Ha! If you personally hire an obviously shady character to run your personal business (ie, campaign), then, yes, you are guilty -- at a minimum -- of terrible judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manafort and Trump have known each other and worked together for over 3 decades.

They both laundered money. This indictment also illustrates to Trump that Mueller knows how to engage in financial forensics and use it in a legal proceeding.

So, let me get this straight.
If your best childhood friend was caught embezzling than, you, as his friend, would also be guilty?
I know how badly you want your statement to be true, but just saying it does not make it so.

Ha! If you personally hire an obviously shady character to run your personal business (ie, campaign), then, yes, you are guilty -- at a minimum -- of terrible judgment.

com·plic·it
k?m?plisit/Submit
adjective
involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.
"all of these people are complicit in some criminal conspiracy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This indictment pertains to the campaign. Papadopolous plead guilty,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4163402/Papadopoulos-Statement-Offense.pdf

This is an even bigger deal than Manafort

It happened on Oct 4th. If it’s a big deal, why weren’t we talking about it when it happened?

See the Washington Post article about it in the other thread; and this document was just unsealed today.

The fact that it was unsealed today with Manafort is bad news for all the Fox News lovers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manafort and Trump have known each other and worked together for over 3 decades.

They both laundered money. This indictment also illustrates to Trump that Mueller knows how to engage in financial forensics and use it in a legal proceeding.

So, let me get this straight.
If your best childhood friend was caught embezzling than, you, as his friend, would also be guilty?
I know how badly you want your statement to be true, but just saying it does not make it so.

Ha! If you personally hire an obviously shady character to run your personal business (ie, campaign), then, yes, you are guilty -- at a minimum -- of terrible judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds to me like this has to do with the campaign

And there it is. They will have similar communications on servers somewhere that will have been sent to Trump directly, in all likelihood.

As the noose tightens, someone (probably someone small--a John Dean type) will crack and say they "were only following Trumpnut's orders". And just like any defendant faced with these types of charges, Trump will go down, hard. It will take time, though. Tincture of time and diligence, which Mueller has in spades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still struggling to see how any of this involves the campaign.

The campaign of which Manafort was chairman? That campaign?

You mean the campaign chairman who was there briefly and then let go?
Still not seeing the connection.

Okay. You don't have to see any connection. This is obviously all NBD to you.

If Mueller is so sharp and there’s such an avalanche of evidence, where is it?

No where.

God, you clearly have no idea how the government builds a case.

If the gov had a case it would not need to build one.

Ok, I can’t argue with stupid. You need to believe Trump is a great man, no matter what. I will leave you to sit under your blanket and pretend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still struggling to see how any of this involves the campaign.

The campaign of which Manafort was chairman? That campaign?

You mean the campaign chairman who was there briefly and then let go?
Still not seeing the connection.

Okay. You don't have to see any connection. This is obviously all NBD to you.

If Mueller is so sharp and there’s such an avalanche of evidence, where is it?

No where.

God, you clearly have no idea how the government builds a case.

If the gov had a case it would not need to build one.

Yes, in third world tinpot dictatorships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This indictment pertains to the campaign. Papadopolous plead guilty,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4163402/Papadopoulos-Statement-Offense.pdf

This is an even bigger deal than Manafort

It happened on Oct 4th. If it’s a big deal, why weren’t we talking about it when it happened?

See the Washington Post article about it in the other thread; and this document was just unsealed today.

The fact that it was unsealed today with Manafort is bad news for all the Fox News lovers

Yes, but what is happening with the cheeseburger emoji! Let's not lose sight of the important news here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manafort and Trump have known each other and worked together for over 3 decades.

They both laundered money. This indictment also illustrates to Trump that Mueller knows how to engage in financial forensics and use it in a legal proceeding.

So, let me get this straight.
If your best childhood friend was caught embezzling than, you, as his friend, would also be guilty?
I know how badly you want your statement to be true, but just saying it does not make it so.

Ah, conservatives. Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta who worked on the Hillary campaign, is guilty even though he didn't work with her and therefore Hillary is guilty, but Manafort is guilty and therefore it stops with him. That's a headscratcher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds to me like this has to do with the campaign

And there it is. They will have similar communications on servers somewhere that will have been sent to Trump directly, in all likelihood.

As the noose tightens, someone (probably someone small--a John Dean type) will crack and say they "were only following Trumpnut's orders". And just like any defendant faced with these types of charges, Trump will go down, hard. It will take time, though. Tincture of time and diligence, which Mueller has in spades.

Ba hahaha haha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

And the Trumplodytes are trying to say this is a nothingburger? This is great. This is the best Corn/Mischief Night I have ever had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conspiracy against the US charge is 18 USC 371. Tax stuff, failure to disclose, failure to pay taxes, etc. Starting with the smallest fish first.

When they have big fish stuff, they don't need the small fish.

Apparently small fish is all they got.

Waste o' time and money.

Bigger fish would have leaked. For sure. Agreed

Thank you, fellow sane person.
Mueller isn't going to play tax games with Manafort if he has anything of substance on any big fish. This isn't a long range 3 D chess game. Mueller has been investigating a long time, and this is all he could come up with.

But by all means, the babies here can continue cooing and reaching for the shiny object. Apparently real life holds no lure for them. Fantasy land, engage!

Donald Trump's campaign manager has been charged with conspiracy against the United States. Did you not see that?

He also worked with the Dems and Podesta group. Do you not see that?