Mueller's Patton the back (investigation thread v. 22)

[Quequeg]

We really have to stop responding to waiguoren, all he does is regurgitate idotic talking points directly from the Trump defense.

 

[waiguoren]

We really have to stop responding to waiguoren, all he does is regurgitate idotic talking points directly from the Trump defense.

It's amusing to me that you claim to speak for the masses ("we"). Be your own man.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

This is what you get when you have a poster who has no legal experience within the US, and bases his entire understanding of US criminal procedure on right wing shit blogs. The legal standard you have just posted is bullshit. They do not need "direct evidence" (circumstantial is fine and overwhelming here, regardless of whether you admit it or not; and 12 other people may not be as stupid/partisan), nor is the standard any different from any other criminal count.

And to suggest that your best bet is a biased jury, is just pure dipshit speculation.




I really marvel at how you think this is a good point, or how you think this would sway anyone. The idea that person B cannot be found guilty, because person A wasn't found guilty on a similar count in an entirely different set of facts, well that's just Guilliani'esq.

This is nothing more than preparation to dismiss guilty pleas and convictions because: 1) you know, sometimes people who are found/plead guilty are really innocent, so these guys must be innocent too; and 2) John Edwards was not guilty, so these people can't be guilty either.

I mean, do you really read you own posts and think "boy I'm doing a good job here?"

The next time I hear and Australian comment on how bad the US educational system is, I'm just gonna show them one of your posts and watch them burst into tears.

Regarding bolded part, in a diff thread he tried calling it precedent till I fucking shit all over his stupid ass. Funny he's still parroting it

What is the "overwhelming evidence" to which you refer? If Trump had a catch-and-kill relationship with National Enquirer going back 10 years, your case would be a flop. The Edwards payments had no precursor, were much larger, and the scheme was much more involved (shuttle the mistress around the country to avoid the media) and the jury still couldn't convict.

Completely irrelevant to cite Edwards . No one wanted to point at Edwards and say it was to benefit the campaign . He had multiple witnesses stating it was to hide from cancer stricken wife . Sorry you're too stupid to comprehend reasonable doubt but that is what we call reasonable doubt .

Meanwhile tRUmp has a deputy finance chair of the RNC saying it was to avoid negative campaign press. Which would be the standard to get a felony campaign finance violation .

 

[andnowweknow]

Is the Mueller investigation into Russia about illegal collusion between Russia and Trump or not? When are we going to see something or have you guys admit that you're pissing in the wind?

Is this a real question? He's going to produce a report. It'll be done when he's done. Yes, we're all speculating until then.

So unless you want to impugn the integrity of the investigation or Bob Mueller (a man everyone agrees has integrity...anyone not buying snake oil Trump's bs anyway)...his report will be the answer.

We have no idea what he's found out about Russian collusion and we also know he doesn't leak and that what he knows now is magnitudes more than any of us do.

You forgot obstruction of justice...I'm sure conveniently as that has pretty obviously occurred.

 

[waiguoren]

Jay Goldberg, former attorney to Donald Trump.



Melber: Jay, let's take a took at your prediction, proven correct in part, that Cohen would buckle under the pressure and you've also talked about other crimes he might be affiliated with. Take a look:

---------------------------
(Previous segment)
Melber: We hear a lot now about potential money laundering and the mafia. Why do you think that comes up with Michael Cohen?

Goldberg: People involved in the building trades are at the mercy of the mob.

Melber: Do you think Michael Cohen's job was, at times, to keep the mob away from Donald Trump?

.....(segment cut).....


Goldberg: The question is what did he fix and what needed fixing? What needed fixing was relations with the mob....

------------------------

Melber: How did you get it right that he would plea, and if you were right about relations with the mob, why was that not charged?

Goldberg: I said on another program that I couldn't see him after he got his inmate clothing and was told to walk down broadway, that there would be inmates banging their cups against the bars saying "you're going to be my wife." I didn't think he would have the stomach to risk what really goes on in a prison setting.

Melber: Do you think he won't get a real sentence?

Goldberg: He will get a real sentence only after he provides substantial assistance.

Melber: Why no mob charges?

Goldberg: That could be a long-standing investigation conducted by the Southern District. They have in the past looked into the building trades and found that builders in New York are at the mercy of mobsters who threaten labor strife in order to unduly burden a builder and a payoff is the order of the day.

Melber: Now, you like Donald Trump.

Goldberg: I liked him, and I still like him a great deal.

Melber: Let me read to you some of his language. He said Don McGahn "isn't a John Dean-style rat." He said he knows all about "flippers". He praised Manafort because he wouldn't "break" and he talks a lot about "loyalty". Does that remind you of some of the accused mafiosos that you've ever represented?

Goldberg: Yes, that's typical language, I mean somebody points out...

Melber: Is that the right language for the president?

Goldberg: There's no precedent I could turn to to say whether it's right or wrong. It's correct, as far as I can tell. To hinge an interview on a word that he used as opposed to another word I think is a waste of time.

Melber: Yeah, you think that's not the focus....I'm going to come back to you, let me bring in Maya.

...
...


Melber: Now Jay, as you know, this story has captivated the entire nation. I'm sure you know. I don't know if you're familiar with Curtis Jackson, the musician Fiddy Cent? Have you heard of him?

Goldberg: No, I haven't.

Melber: He's a pretty prominent musician. When we were covering this, we spoke about this and he agreed with you that the nature of Michael Cohen, who is he is, would lead to him cutting a deal. I wonder if you could contrast that analysis with the reports that Mr. Manafort also entered some discussions of a plea, whether or not it involved cooperating information.

Goldberg: I think anybody facing a long prison term caves in.

Melber: Anybody?

Goldber: I can only think of two exceptions: Carmine "The Snake" Persico and "Fat" Tony Solerno as the two people who stood up and said, "80 years? I'll do it." Other than that, people---mafiosa, or others---faced with a long prison term, cooperate. But you must remember this, Ari: the fact that they are cooperating doesn't ensure that they are telling the truth.

Melber: Mmhmm.

Goldberg: Their goal is to win the cooperation of the government so that the government tells the judge they have provided substantial assistance and the judge can go outside the guidelines and give them a more lenient sentence.

 

[waiguoren]

No one wanted to point at Edwards and say it was to benefit the campaign

Really? No one? How about the Justice Department, which was attempting to prosecute Edwards for campaign finance violations and conspiracy to direct others to make illegal campaign contributions? It's clear you haven't read the indictment against Edwards, which is available here.



COUNT THREE
2 U.S.C. § 441a
(Illegal Campaign Contributions)

36. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
12 and paragraphs 15 through 33 of this Indictment are
incorporated here.

37. During the calendar year 2 008, in the Middle
District of North Carolina and elsewhere, the defendant,
JOHNNY REID EDWARDS, while a candidate for federal office,
knowingly and willfully accepted and received contributions from
Person C in excess of the limits of the Election Act, which
aggregated $25,000 and more, and did aid and abet said offense.


COUNT FOUR
2 U.S.C. § 441a
(Illegal Campaign Contributions)

38. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
12 and paragraphs 15 through 33 of this Indictment are
incorporated here.

39. During the calendar year 2007, in the Middle
District of North Carolina and elsewhere, the defendant,
JOHNNY REID EDWARDS, while a candidate for federal office,
knowingly and willfully accepted and received contributions from
Person D in excess of the limits of the Election Act, which
aggregated $25,000 and more, and did aid and abet said offense.


COUNT FIVE
2 U.S.C. § 441a
(Illegal Campaign Contributions)

40. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
12 and paragraphs 15 through 33 of this Indictment are
incorporated here.

41. During the calendar year 2008, in the Middle
District of North Carolina and elsewhere, the defendant,
JOHNNY REID EDWARDS, while a candidate for federal office,
knowingly and willfully accepted and received contributions from
Person D in excess of the limits of the Election Act, which
aggregated $25,000 and more, and did aid and abet said offense.

 

[waiguoren]

He had multiple witnesses stating it was to hide from cancer stricken wife .

Sure, and Trump could certainly trot out some witnesses to say the same, minus the cancer. Also, if Trump had been paying the National Enquirer to quash these stories for years before he announced his campaign, then it would be obvious he had other reasons to make these payments.

 

[waiguoren]

You forgot obstruction of justice...I'm sure conveniently as that has pretty obviously occurred.

That could only be "obvious" if you are living in alternate reality.

 

[bobgeese]

Trump has nobody to blame for the special counsel but himself. Don't fire James Comey because he won't go easy on Flynn and generally do Trump's bidding...no special counsel.

In other news, are there any other pro Trump guys in this thread besides @bobgeese and @waiguoren at this stage or has everyone else abandoned ship?

They’ve become bored with 29 threads of “it’s not happenings”.

“OMG some guy trump never met gave money to someone trump knows”
*ignores the dubious money poured into every other politician in history*



I just come to point and laugh at the democrat version of birthers, still clinging to the hope that any day now, the smoking gun that nobody has been able to find for 3 years will finally take dfumffucmylif down.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

The reason I don’t follow all this too closely is it really doesn’t matter what the evidence is. The impeachment vote is purely political, no legal basis or standard of proof is required. If the democrats win the primaries, trump will be impeached no matter what. I believe this has more to do with many people’s despise for trump’s apparent racism and sexism than anything to do with Russia.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Is this a real question? He's going to produce a report. It'll be done when he's done. Yes, we're all speculating until then.

So unless you want to impugn the integrity of the investigation or Bob Mueller (a man everyone agrees has integrity...anyone not buying snake oil Trump's bs anyway)...his report will be the answer.

We have no idea what he's found out about Russian collusion and we also know he doesn't leak and that what he knows now is magnitudes more than any of us do.

You forgot obstruction of justice...I'm sure conveniently as that has pretty obviously occurred.

Why is it always a "let's wait and see" when asking for evidence for something meaningful. You fucks sure seem to have your minds made up

In other news, are there any other pro Trump guys in this thread besides @bobgeese and @waiguoren at this stage or has everyone else abandoned ship?

When will Mueller be done? When he decides to be done? Who is holding him accountable? What is the scope of the investigation? It sounds like hes been given free reign with no deadline.

Again to answer your question from earlier. Trump supporters are ignoring this for the same reason lots of Democrats are starting to. You can only accuse somebody of something for so long without showing your hand

 

[Darkballs]

That's a strawman.

It's your argument dipshit. You've posted it multiple times in this thread and the threads that came before it. By definition, a strawman can't be the exact argument you are making.

Do they speak the derps-english down under?

Were the Edwards payments "campaign contributions" or not, in your opinion?

The Edwards case has nothing to do with trumps. Whatever Edwards did, or didn't do, has no bearing on the actions of trump and his administration. The only reason you keep bringing it up is to suggest that because a jury didn't convict in one case, they can't convict in another. Even if the circumstances of the cases were similar, and they are not, it would still be a stupid point that serves no purpose other than to deflect. If I posted cases where a person was found guilty for campaign finance related charges, would that have any bearing on trump's guilt here?

 

[Darkballs]

The reason I don’t follow all this too closely is it really doesn’t matter what the evidence is. The impeachment vote is purely political, no legal basis or standard of proof is required. If the democrats win the primaries, trump will be impeached no matter what. I believe this has more to do with many people’s despise for trump’s apparent racism and sexism than anything to do with Russia.

So the multiple criminal convictions and guilty pleas are just a stunning coincidence?

 

[Joe]

why would innocent people try to hide a report

 

[Tekk]

why would innocent people try to hide a report

For a guy that claims to be innocent he sure does act guilty.

 

[waiguoren]

It's your argument dipshit. You've posted it multiple times in this thread

No matter how many times you repeat that, it won't become any less false.

The Edwards case has nothing to do with trumps.

The two cases are very similar. Both were candidates for President of the United States. Both requested that others make payments to mistresses during campaign season to keep quiet. Edwards went several steps further, having his financial backers pay to help the woman travel around the country and avoid the media.

Whatever Edwards did, or didn't do, has no bearing on the actions of trump and his administration.

I agree.

The only reason you keep bringing it up is to suggest that because a jury didn't convict in one case, they can't convict in another.

No, I bring it up to point out the unmistakable similarities in the two cases.

Even if the circumstances of the cases were similar, and they are not,

What, in your opinion, are the features of Trump's payment to Stephanie Clifford that qualifies that payment as a "campaign contribution" which were lacking when John Edwards had his wealthy contributors make payments to Rielle Hunter?

If I posted cases where a person was found guilty for campaign finance related charges, would that have any bearing on trump's guilt here?

If that person was running for federal office, paid hush money to a mistress during the campaign, and his political opponents accused him of making "campaign contributions" by paying the mistress----then yes, you should certainly post about it.

 

[Quequeg]

why would innocent people try to hide a report

Wow! They get away with this we are a full on Banana Republic dictatorship.

 

[waiguoren]

What is the scope of the investigation? It sounds like hes been given free reign with no deadline.

Rosenstein gave Mueller the authority to investigate "any matters that may arise in the course of the investigation". That's infinitely expandable. No limits or deadline are in effect.

 

[waiguoren]

why would innocent people try to hide a report

The source for this claim is the same guy who went on CNN and said that criticizing Antifa is racist because Antifa is a mostly black organization.

 

[Quequeg]

The senile drunk Rudy said a rebuttal is being prepared, let me get this strait, they are gonna rebut a report that hey don't know the contents of?