Russia Collusion Megathread v.10: one guilty plea, two indictments, one resignation

[Bargey]

I’m asking what exactly makes anyone a “swamp creature” beyond Trump not liking what they’re doing (like not protecting him from an investigation he doesn’t like, or shutting down one that targets his lackeys).

It really looks like all that it takes is Trump’s disfavor. Which eliminates any pretenses of virtue to the whole idea.

No, if you are part of the machine that is determined to ignore / cover up the corrupt and wasteful status quo practices of the government and beaurocracy (on both sides), you are a swamp creature. Sessions appears to be a swamp creature.

 

[Bargey]

You said you didn't get what I was talking about. I'm not sure, if it isn't possible to communicate ideas to you, why I should bother talking to you at all.

You were quite vague so i had to guess who you were referring to. But I answered anyway. Can you answer my question? (and the fundamental question of this whole issue)

 

[ShadowRun]

Seems like the only one draining the swamp is Meuller.

P.S. what the fuck does the Dotard put in his hair? That's disgusting? Is it Putin's jizz, wtf?

I'm not sure how President Trump triggered you so much but I do approve, nothing says I'm triggered more than making Trump your AV....carry on and he puts gold in his hair

 

[HOLA]

I'm not sure how President Trump triggered you so much but I do approve, nothing says I'm triggered more than making Trump your AV....carry on and he puts gold in his hair

Golden showers?

 

[FIMN]

No, if you are part of the machine that is determined to ignore / cover up the corrupt and wasteful status quo practices of the government and beaurocracy (on both sides), you are a swamp creature. Sessions appears to be a swamp creature.

But you want him to appoint a special counsel without the necessary legal basis to do so, because it goes after your political enemies?

Odd position to take.

 

[Quipling]

You were quite vague so i had to guess who you were referring to. But I answered anyway. Can you answer my question? (and the fundamental question of this whole issue)

I was not vague. I referred to specific titles, and anyone following the story would know who the people to whom I referred were; I named three in the OP.

You did not ask a question. You made a series of inaccurate claims.

Really not sure what you are talking about. The Papadum guy hardly had a connection to the leadership of the campaign.

First, if you can't get the name of a party anywhere near correct, you're either intentionally playing dumb, or not familiar enough with the subject matter to discuss it. Feel free to clarify which door you're behind. Second, if you had read his criminal information or the followups on it, you would know that Papapodolous was in frequent communication with campaign leadership about his activities, and they discussed his activities with eachother. Those activities included discussing the campaign with russian officials and attempting to obtain information from them. That he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense does not render that behavior non-criminal, and the idea that he was a minor volunteer has long-since been debunked. Minor volunteers do not get to attend meetings with the candidate and then get personally named as an advisor.[/QUOTE]

Manafort ceased to be involved with the Trump team some time ago and his alleged crimes were committed long before he had a role with the campaign

Manafort literally ran Trump's campaign for a period of time, and was involved with him after Trump was elected. The indictment alleges criminal behavior reaching late into 2016. I'm not really interested or entertained by your repetition of long-debunked talking-points.

and Flynn was doing something unconnected with collusion with the Trump campaign although we'll see how that whole thing plays out.

You jumped from a conclusion from what happened to a "well, we'll see" in the course of a sentence. Perhaps you should drop the conclusion entirely.

Still waiting for someone to connect the Trump campaign and POTUS specifically to any illegal collusion.

Its incredible that members of the campaign can be charged with illegal activity in connection with their role in the campaign, and somehow that has nothing to do with the campaign.

Nothing connecting the Trump campaign to illegal collusion then? Ok.....

This is an assertion with a question mark.

If you want a serious response in the future, discuss current developments. I'm not interested in rehashing issues from October, like Papadopolous's role in the campaign, with you.

 

[Bargey]

But you want him to appoint a special counsel without the necessary legal basis to do so, because it goes after your political enemies?

Odd position to take.

Because people may have broken the law.

 

[FIMN]

Because people may have broken the law.

Is that the only standard for setting up a SC?

 

[Bargey]

I was not vague. I referred to specific titles, and anyone following the story would know who the people to whom I referred were; I named three in the OP.

You did not ask a question. You made a series of inaccurate claims.

Nope, my claims are accurate. You are yet to show that Papadopolous, who nobody ever heard of before a couple weeks ago, was a big part of the campaign.
You are yet to show that Manafort illegally colluded with Russian interests in his role as Trump campaign manager.

And you are yet to show that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with the Russians to steal the election. You can’t even say how the election was stolen.

Your 1000 word essays don’t seem to be very informative either.

 

[Bargey]

Is that the only standard for setting up a SC?

Not sure but it seems a good reason to start.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Its incredible that members of the campaign can be charged with illegal activity in connection with their role in the campaign, and somehow that has nothing to do with the campaign.

It is incredible that none of Paul Manafort's charges have anything to do with his role with the campaign. It is obvious he is being pressured for a testimony deal, which because of Manafort's conflict of interest in giving the testimony they want to hear to gain his own freedom, this means the prosecution is manufacturing evidence.

 

[HOLA]

Nope, my claims are accurate. You are yet to show that Papadopolous, who nobody ever heard of before a couple weeks ago, was a big part of the campaign.
You are yet to show that Manafort illegally colluded with Russian interests in his role as Trump campaign manager.

And you are yet to show that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with the Russians to steal the election. You can’t even say how the election was stolen.

Your 1000 word essays don’t seem to be very informative either.

You really have no idea what's going on. Trump called out Papadopolous by name way back in 2016, going out of his way in listing him as a top advisor, and calling him an excellent guy.

 

[Bargey]

You really have no idea what's going on. Trump called out Papadopolous by name way back in 2016, going out of his way in listing him as a top advisor, and calling him an excellent guy.

Yep. The clincher. Trump mentioned his name!!!!

 

[Quipling]

Nope, my claims are accurate. You are yet to show that Papadopolous, who nobody ever heard of before a couple weeks ago, was a big part of the campaign.
You are yet to show that Manafort illegally colluded with Russian interests in his role as Trump campaign manager.

And you are yet to show that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with the Russians to steal the election. You can’t even say how the election was stolen.

Your 1000 word essays don’t seem to be very informative either.

I referred you to documents supporting the claims I made about Papadolous. The remainder of your statements refer to positions I have not taken, but which you nevertheless attribute to me.

Its apparent you're not here to discuss anything in good faith. You just want to derail with Clinton whataboutisms, straw claims, and disputing basic facts.

If you can't be arsed to read the documents I have now thrice referred you to, and will instead insist that I have not supported my arguments without reviewing them, Im not sure what contributions you have to make here.

 

[HOLA]

It is incredible that none of Paul Manafort's charges have anything to do with his role with the campaign. It is obvious he is being pressured for a testimony deal, which because of Manafort's conflict of interest in giving the testimony they want to hear to gain his own freedom, this means the prosecution is manufacturing evidence.

Jeez man. Sherdog has a real top mind defense attorney here. Going after lower level guys to get the top means the prosecution is making up evidence, apparently. It's not like this tactic has been used successfully a few thousand times or anything.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Papadolous was a nothing burger looking to make a name for himself, whose efforts had no influence over the campaign at all.

 

[HOLA]

Yep. The clincher. Trump mentioned his name!!!!

specifically as a top advisor. Your forgot that part.

 

[Quipling]

You really have no idea what's going on. Trump called out Papadopolous by name way back in 2016, going out of his way in listing him as a top advisor, and calling him an excellent guy.

Yes, this is one things I am talking about. Bargey is insistent that P was a nothing, but a quick check of the documents and articles to which he has been referred would show that Papadolous met privately with Trump, was named as an advisor to the press by Trump, and who, per his signed plea agreement, was in frequent communication with high level Trump campaign officials about his communications with Russian officials and agents.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Jeez man. Sherdog has a real top mind defense attorney here. Going after lower level guys to get the top means the prosecution is making up evidence, apparently. It's not like this tactic has been used successfully a few thousand times or anything.

If the judge or jury heard of the witness's testimony deal the credibility would not be sufficient to convict.

 

[Quipling]

If the judge or jury heard of the witness's testimony deal the credibility would not be sufficient to convict.

I suggest you review one of the tens of thousands of trials in which a defendant has been convicted on testimony resulting from such a plea. Juries and judges do not find plea deals to be as credibility destroying as you apparently believe, even though they may occasionally be introduced to impeach a witness.

Papadolous was a nothing burger looking to make a name for himself, whose efforts had no influence over the campaign at all.

Incorrect. See http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/r...ne-resignation.3646421/page-36#post-136087823