Mueller shows some of his hand

[jj22]

And Trump is looking (and acting this morning) done.

Collusion is looking more and more evident..

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

To recap:

Manafort joins Trump campaign March 2016

Manafort secretly visits Wikileaks Assange in Ecuador, Spring 2016.

Trump elevates Manafort to Campaign Manager (June 2016)

 In June and July 2016, Wikileaks releases Democratic emails.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mueller-says-manafort-kept-lying-even-after-plea-agreement?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma

[Dill]

(11-27-2018, 12:17 PM)jj22 Wrote: And Trump is looking (and acting this morning) done.

Collusion is looking more and more evident..

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

To recap:

Manafort joins Trump campaign March 2016

Manafort secretly visits Wikileaks Assange in Ecuador, Spring 2016.

Trump elevates Manafort to Campaign Manager (June 2016)

 In June and July 2016, Wikileaks releases Democratic emails.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mueller-says-manafort-kept-lying-even-after-plea-agreement?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma

Er, the Ecuadorian embassy in London?


Very interesting chain of events. But remember that, as campaign manager, Manafort had only a small role in Trump's campaign. He ran for coffee, things like that.  No solid connection to Trump.

[Benton]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/doj-mistakenly-reveals-indictment-against-wikileaks-julian-assange.html

Quote:The Justice Department has apparently prepared to indict Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, setting up a legal battle that could have broad ramifications for the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election as well as the government's prosecution of journalists and others who publicize national security secrets.

The revelation was an accident. Prosecutors pursuing an unrelated sex crimes case, against a man named Seitu Sulayman Kokayi, referenced Assange twice in a filing seeking to keep the complaint against Kokayi under seal.

To the bold: That's why you don't cut and paste legal documents or texts to your date.

[hollodero]

(11-27-2018, 01:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Er, the Ecuadorian embassy in London?

Very interesting chain of events. But remember that, as campaign manager, Manafort had only a small role in Trump's campaign. He ran for coffee, things like that.  No solid connection to Trump.

Trump doesn't even know the guy, they probably never even met. And the things Manafort did as "campaign manager" were so minor that he didn't even get paid, even though being deeply in debt.

Also, Trump didn't know anything about anything malicious and the fake news haven't even called him to get their fake stories debunked from the most credible witness and source. He's the one who should know best whom he knew and what he knew.

These articles are just the left being vile and evil again. As evidenced by the teargas against children policy that stems directly from Obama.

[fredtoast]

(11-27-2018, 02:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: Trump doesn't even know the guy, they probably never even met. And the things Manafort did as "campaign manager" were so minor that he didn't even get paid, even though being deeply in debt.

Also, Trump didn't know anything about anything malicious and the fake news haven't even called him to get their fake stories debunked from the most credible witness and source. He's the one who should know best whom he knew and what he knew.

These articles are just the left being vile and evil again. As evidenced by the teargas against children policy that stems directly from Obama.

It's possible.

Remember how Reagan had no knowledge that his administration was illegally funding the Contra rebels in Nicaragua through illegal weapons trade with Iran??

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 04:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It's possible.

Remember how Reagan had no knowledge that his administration was illegally funding the Contra rebels in Nicaragua through illegal weapons trade with Iran??

Or how Obama didn't find out his Secretary of State was using a private server to process government documents until the public did?


WTS, regardless of the outcome I hope this investigation runs its course very soon. 

[fredtoast]

(11-27-2018, 04:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or how Obama didn't find out his Secretary of State was using a private server to process government documents until the public did?


WTS, regardless of the outcome I hope this investigation runs its course very soon. 

The Iran Contra operation required the authorization of large amounts of funding, personnel, and logistics and was illegal.

Hillary using a private server involved one small purchase at Best Buy and no laws were broken.


But otherwise they are exactly the same.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 04:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Iran Contra operation required the authorization of large amounts of funding, personnel, and logistics and was illegal.

Hillary using a private server involved one small purchase at Best Buy and no laws were broken.


But otherwise they are exactly the same.

Exactly. POTUS plead ignorance in both cases. I like it when we agree. 

[Benton]

(11-27-2018, 04:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or how Obama didn't find out his Secretary of State was using a private server to process government documents until the public did?


WTS, regardless of the outcome I hope this investigation runs its course very soon. 

Side note: If Trump runs in 2020 and Clinton runs in 2020 and people chant "lock her up," is he going to have to shout back "Which one?"

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 04:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or how Obama didn't find out his Secretary of State was using a private server to process government documents until the public did?


WTS, regardless of the outcome I hope this investigation runs its course very soon. 

[Benton]

(11-27-2018, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Exactly. POTUS plead ignorance in both cases. I like it when we agree. 

One was plausible. One was laughable.

But at least there was an example of a Democrat claiming he didn't know what another Democrat was doing.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 04:46 PM)Benton Wrote: One was plausible. One was laughable.

But at least there was an example of a Democrat claiming he didn't know what another Democrat was doing.

It was a simple retort to someone else bringing up a previous Republican claiming he didn't know what another Republican was doing. Apparently you had no issue with that. 

[Benton]

(11-27-2018, 04:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was a simple retort to someone else bringing up a previous Republican claiming he didn't know what another Republican was doing. Apparently you had no issue with that. 

Generally, no.

Not because of the party, but because it's a decent example of a POTUS claiming he didn't know anything when it would be very difficult to hide that kind of a thing from the POTUS given the amount of resources and people involved. Unlike, as Fred noted, one person using a server bought from at a public store.

[GMDino]

I wish there was a word or phrase for people who bring up Obama in every discussion of the investigations into Trump...

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 04:57 PM)Benton Wrote: Generally, no.

Not because of the party, but because it's a decent example of a POTUS claiming he didn't know anything when it would be very difficult to hide that kind of a thing from the POTUS given the amount of resources and people involved. Unlike, as Fred noted, one person using a server bought from at a public store.

Understood. The purpose was to illustrate that one side doesn't have a monopoly on these types of actions (POTUS feigning ignorance). I apologize the example provided fell short. I'll see if I can scrub the history books and find one that does pass muster in my feeble attemt to show this is an nonpartisan action. 

[hollodero]

(11-27-2018, 05:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Understood. The purpose was to illustrate that one side doesn't have a monopoly on these types of actions (POTUS feigning ignorance). I apologize the example provided fell short. I'll see if I can scrub the history books and find one that does pass muster in my feeble attemt to show this is an nonpartisan action. 

Right now, it's not a nonpartisan issue, but a Trump issue.

One can take issue with Hillary's emails - or use Hillary's emails in an attempt to normalize "feigning ignorance" by a POTUS. But one can't really do both without appearing to be driven by partisanry rather than objectivity and fairness. If Hillary's emails shine a bad light on Obama, then there's no point denying the awful light on Trump.

[fredtoast]

(11-27-2018, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Exactly. POTUS plead ignorance in both cases. I like it when we agree. 

We don't agree.

One was plausible, the other was not.

Trump probably had no idea what type of computer system his campaign used, but it is ridiculous to claim he had no knowledge of such a major operation involving intel from Assange.

[fredtoast]

(11-27-2018, 05:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I'll see if I can scrub the history books and find one that does pass muster in my feeble attemt to show this is an nonpartisan action. 

There are not really that many cases of a President claiming he had no idea people in his administration were committing felonies.

Watergate and Iran/Contra are by far the two most famous examples.  Bill Clinton knew his mistress lied in a sworn affidavit, but that had nothing to do with politics or corruption.  It is unheard of to prosecute a person for perjury for lying about an extramarital affair in a civil action.

But what is your point.  You think that if you can find an example of someone from "the other side" doing it that means we can't call Trump a liar or punish him?

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 07:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We don't agree.

One was plausible, the other was not.

Trump probably had no idea what type of computer system his campaign used, but it is ridiculous to claim he had no knowledge of such a major operation involving intel from Assange.

So you don't think Obama knew that Hills was using her personal email for government business before we did?

I get folks trying to make it "nuanced" but the bottom line is no party has a monopoly on this type of business.

FWIW, do you think the current Trump issue is on par with Contra or are they different? 

[fredtoast]

(11-27-2018, 07:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: FWIW, do you think the current Trump issue is on par with Contra or are they different? 

They both involve colluding with an enemy country..  Iran Contra was MUCH worse because it was a sitting president carrying on unchecked illegal foreign affairs.  Trump was just trying to win an election, but if there was collusion the question is what did the Russians get out of it.

Water Gate was more famous, but I really don't see it being as dangerous to the country as Iran/Contra or Trump/Putin.