Paul Manafort Told to Surrender

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see any R defending Manafort. I just see people correctly stating that this far, none of this implicates Trump.

Yes, that is true. So far, only Trump's campaign manager has been implicated. Now let's talk about that meeting with the campaign manager (indicted) and Trump's son and son in law with the Russian operatives to obtain campaign dirt! I love it!

Mueller didn’t have any indictments for Trumps son or SIL.

I'm impressed that you can type that with a straight face.

Link to indictments for Jr or Kushner?

PS- your fantasies don’t count as evidence or indictments.

I'm sorry, did I miss that Mueller has closed the investigation following these, the only indictments?

Where's your inside info that's there more indictments? Specifically for Jr or Kushner? i know you want it to happen, but just because you want it or think it will happen doesn't make it so.

Here's my inside info:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-tower-veselnitskaya-russia.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see any R defending Manafort. I just see people correctly stating that this far, none of this implicates Trump.

Yes, that is true. So far, only Trump's campaign manager has been implicated. Now let's talk about that meeting with the campaign manager (indicted) and Trump's son and son in law with the Russian operatives to obtain campaign dirt! I love it!

Mueller didn’t have any indictments for Trumps son or SIL.

I'm impressed that you can type that with a straight face.

Link to indictments for Jr or Kushner?

PS- your fantasies don’t count as evidence or indictments.

I'm sorry, did I miss that Mueller has closed the investigation following these, the only indictments?

Where's your inside info that's there more indictments? Specifically for Jr or Kushner? i know you want it to happen, but just because you want it or think it will happen doesn't make it so.

"together with others"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can tell he's cooperating b/c he pleaded guilty to just one relatively minor crime-1 count of lying to the FBI. That's negotiated between his Lawyer of the Amazing Bio and the FBI.

Yes, Trump is VERY AFRAID. He has hired Ty Cobb. Yes, that Ty Cobb's 83rd once removed cousin, so, yeah.. (LOL) Trumpnuts is hemorrhaging legal fees to a senior Hogan Lovell partner, top firm, top lawyer. Not because he expects to merely hold Justice's feet to the fire--he will--but to arrange a settlement for prison sentence time when it comes. Only a K street firm can do that. Once these things go to criminal charges, you really are toast, it's just a matter of how toasted.

It’s just an old tax issue

True. All Manafort did was evade taxes. By laundering money from a Ukrainian political party. A Ukrainian political party aligned with Russia and Putin.

So, yeah, just taxes. Sure.

So where’s the info connecting this to Trump?

In case you missed it, Manafort RAN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN while much of this was going on. It doesn't get any higher than that on a campaign, except the principal himself.

Running a campaign isn’t a crime. The assumed tax crimes occurred years before Manafort’s 3-4 month stint as Trump campaign manager. Trump fired him...wonder why?

No evidence any of Manafort’s tax crime being involved with Trump.

Podesta brothers are doing the same thing Manafort is.

I know HUNDREDS of people in DC doing what Manafort and the Podestas are doing.

So what happened between 2006 and 2017 with others....


Please explain what this means -

(Conspiracy Against The United States)

37. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and 32 through 36 are incorporated here.

38. From in or about and between 2006 and 2017, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., and RICHARD W. GATES III, together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of a government agency, namely the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury, and to commit offenses against the United States, fo wit, the violations of law charged in Counts Three through Six and Ten through Twelve.

39. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its illegal object, MANAFORT and GATES committed the overt acts noted in Count Eleven and the overt acts, among others, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere as set forth in paragraphs 9, 16, 17, 20-25, 32, and 34-36, which are incorporated herein.

[Anonymous]

Manafort's dirty dealings were an open secret in DC. That's why Reagan let him go. Podestas are doing the same. The fact that Mueller went after just Manafort and not the Podestas tells me what I need to know about Mueller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Manafort's dirty dealings were an open secret in DC. That's why Reagan let him go. Podestas are doing the same. The fact that Mueller went after just Manafort and not the Podestas tells me what I need to know about Mueller.

How do you know he's not investigating them as we speak?

[Anonymous]

Rudolf Hoess-I mean-Trump indictees would do well to examine how prosecutors have built their convictions against tyrants throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.

Hey there Richard Spence! There's a reference both you and Trump will recognize, dummpkopfs...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see any R defending Manafort. I just see people correctly stating that this far, none of this implicates Trump.

Yes, that is true. So far, only Trump's campaign manager has been implicated. Now let's talk about that meeting with the campaign manager (indicted) and Trump's son and son in law with the Russian operatives to obtain campaign dirt! I love it!

Mueller didn’t have any indictments for Trumps son or SIL.

These are the first of probably many indictments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Manafort's dirty dealings were an open secret in DC. That's why Reagan let him go. Podestas are doing the same. The fact that Mueller went after just Manafort and not the Podestas tells me what I need to know about Mueller.

I think you've forgotten why Mueller was appointed in the first place. It wasn't to charge all crimes anywhere, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manafort's dirty dealings were an open secret in DC. That's why Reagan let him go. Podestas are doing the same. The fact that Mueller went after just Manafort and not the Podestas tells me what I need to know about Mueller.

How do you know he's not investigating them as we speak?

Because it's already an open secret and Mueller hasn't. It's clear what's going on here, especially considering the timing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manafort's dirty dealings were an open secret in DC. That's why Reagan let him go. Podestas are doing the same. The fact that Mueller went after just Manafort and not the Podestas tells me what I need to know about Mueller.

I think you've forgotten why Mueller was appointed in the first place. It wasn't to charge all crimes anywhere, btw.

Special counsels like this get appointed when there is a distinct crime to investigate. There wasn't, which is why Mueller has virtually no restrictions placed on him, financially or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manafort's dirty dealings were an open secret in DC. That's why Reagan let him go. Podestas are doing the same. The fact that Mueller went after just Manafort and not the Podestas tells me what I need to know about Mueller.

How do you know he's not investigating them as we speak?

Because it's already an open secret and Mueller hasn't. It's clear what's going on here, especially considering the timing.

The timing: When George P. lied to the FBI, it was on the same day that Trump asked Comey for a loyalty pledge. Comey declined, was fired, and George P. was arrested for lying to the FBI. January 27 was a big day for the FBI.

[Anonymous]

It is always funny to see people who get their legal knowledge from Law and Order trying to talk about what an indictment means or does not mean.

This is a conspiracy investigation and they always come down the same way. There is a "shot across the bow" indictment that usually targets a "lower" fish than the one they really want. The message to the big fish is "we are coming" and the message to everyone else is "come and cut your deal now before things really get hot."

And truth be told, you may never see a "direct" link to Trump. If these guys were smart, they shielded him - even street level drug boys do that. But if enough people around him and close to him are chargeable and it can be proven they spoke for him or were furthering his interests, no direct link is needed to charge him. And you can thank the Republicans for that little wrinkle in the Federal criminal conspiracy laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is always funny to see people who get their legal knowledge from Law and Order trying to talk about what an indictment means or does not mean.

This is a conspiracy investigation and they always come down the same way. There is a "shot across the bow" indictment that usually targets a "lower" fish than the one they really want. The message to the big fish is "we are coming" and the message to everyone else is "come and cut your deal now before things really get hot."

And truth be told, you may never see a "direct" link to Trump. If these guys were smart, they shielded him - even street level drug boys do that. But if enough people around him and close to him are chargeable and it can be proven they spoke for him or were furthering his interests, no direct link is needed to charge him. And you can thank the Republicans for that little wrinkle in the Federal criminal conspiracy laws.

This is a very big "if." We've seen an awful lot of not-smart from Team Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manafort's dirty dealings were an open secret in DC. That's why Reagan let him go. Podestas are doing the same. The fact that Mueller went after just Manafort and not the Podestas tells me what I need to know about Mueller.

How do you know he's not investigating them as we speak?

Because it's already an open secret and Mueller hasn't. It's clear what's going on here, especially considering the timing.

The timing: When George P. lied to the FBI, it was on the same day that Trump asked Comey for a loyalty pledge. Comey declined, was fired, and George P. was arrested for lying to the FBI. January 27 was a big day for the FBI.

Yet no charges were filed, save for George P. If there was some big collusion charge against Trump or anyone else close to him, that would have leaked already. The rest of what you've typed is simply speculation.

It's no accident that the Uranium One scandal broke with HARD evidence tying the DNC, Clinton AND Obama to Fusion GPS and/or the dossier. Add to that the cosy ties between CNN and Fusion GPS.

A large portion of the American public does see that link and it should be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Anonymous]

Open secret, yes. Sort of like Morganthau's prosecution of John Gotti. Don't you think everyone knew? But-wait for it-you have to prosecute many capos before you get to the capo di tutti capi.