Could he finally have tripped over the right direction?

Quote:WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News.

The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller’s inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to the sources. As special counsel, Mueller has been tasked with investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Manafort had organized a public relations campaign for a non-profit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). Podesta’s company was one of many firms that worked on the campaign, which promoted Ukraine’s image in the West.

The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort’s role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA.

Under FARA, people who lobby on behalf of foreign governments, leaders or political parties must file detailed disclosures about their spending and activities with the Justice Department. Willful failure to file the forms is a felon

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mue...ta-n812776

Muehller's to the point where he may have to sacrifice some underling libturds in order to protect the democratic big dogs.

He may also be using this as the "crime" in order to be investigating Manafort.

This is akin to you guys celebrating a dismal trump approval rating. If they're dirty, then Manafort is likely dirty, ergo trump is likely dirty.

But keep hope alive!

(10-23-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is akin to you guys celebrating a dismal trump approval rating. If they're dirty, then Manafort is likely dirty, ergo trump is likely dirty.

But keep hope alive!

So, do you want dirty politicians brought to light or not?

(10-23-2017 10:07 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

Could he finally have tripped over the right direction?

Quote:WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News.

The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller’s inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to the sources. As special counsel, Mueller has been tasked with investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Manafort had organized a public relations campaign for a non-profit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). Podesta’s company was one of many firms that worked on the campaign, which promoted Ukraine’s image in the West.

The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort’s role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA.

Under FARA, people who lobby on behalf of foreign governments, leaders or political parties must file detailed disclosures about their spending and activities with the Justice Department. Willful failure to file the forms is a felon

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mue...ta-n812776

“Democrat leaning” lobbying firm”...

Haha. Gotta love the DeeCee “press” corps.

Buncha cards.

Watch... If he gets anywhere near Clinton he will start getting dumped on as a villain by the MSM

(10-23-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is akin to you guys celebrating a dismal trump approval rating. If they're dirty, then Manafort is likely dirty, ergo trump is likely dirty.

But keep hope alive!

What it really is an example of the special investigator being a bad law. Finding no wrong doing is essentially seen as "failure" by these guys. So, essentially they become very powerful; guided missiles rooting around everywhere until they find something to prosecute. Its essentially like having a traffic cop follow you all day every day. Eventually you're going to get a ticket.

(10-23-2017 04:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is akin to you guys celebrating a dismal trump approval rating. If they're dirty, then Manafort is likely dirty, ergo trump is likely dirty.

But keep hope alive!

What it really is an example of the special investigator being a bad law. Finding no wrong doing is essentially seen as "failure" by these guys. So, essentially they become very powerful; guided missiles rooting around everywhere until they find something to prosecute. Its essentially like having a traffic cop follow you all day every day. Eventually you're going to get a ticket.

They appear to be digging into stuff from several years back in Ukraine that has nothing directly to do with what he was hired for. It was already being investigated by the FBI.

(10-23-2017 05:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 04:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is akin to you guys celebrating a dismal trump approval rating. If they're dirty, then Manafort is likely dirty, ergo trump is likely dirty.

But keep hope alive!

What it really is an example of the special investigator being a bad law. Finding no wrong doing is essentially seen as "failure" by these guys. So, essentially they become very powerful; guided missiles rooting around everywhere until they find something to prosecute. Its essentially like having a traffic cop follow you all day every day. Eventually you're going to get a ticket.

They appear to be digging into stuff from several years back in Ukraine that has nothing directly to do with what he was hired for. It was already being investigated by the FBI.

Aren't these investigations required to follow wherever things lead? If they see criminality aren't they obligated to follow it and investigate it to see if it applies to the initial reason for their investigation?

Seems like it would be more burdensome as a whole to just leave the stone unturned and/or forward things onto another agency to investigate.

(10-23-2017 03:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is akin to you guys celebrating a dismal trump approval rating. If they're dirty, then Manafort is likely dirty, ergo trump is likely dirty.

But keep hope alive!

So, do you want dirty politicians brought to light or not?

Again with these ridiculous questions?

Gee RWT, do you want a criminal brought to light and charged? No, of course not...I'm for criminals!

(10-24-2017 09:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 05:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 04:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is akin to you guys celebrating a dismal trump approval rating. If they're dirty, then Manafort is likely dirty, ergo trump is likely dirty.

But keep hope alive!

What it really is an example of the special investigator being a bad law. Finding no wrong doing is essentially seen as "failure" by these guys. So, essentially they become very powerful; guided missiles rooting around everywhere until they find something to prosecute. Its essentially like having a traffic cop follow you all day every day. Eventually you're going to get a ticket.

They appear to be digging into stuff from several years back in Ukraine that has nothing directly to do with what he was hired for. It was already being investigated by the FBI.

Aren't these investigations required to follow wherever things lead? If they see criminality aren't they obligated to follow it and investigate it to see if it applies to the initial reason for their investigation?

Seems like it would be more burdensome as a whole to just leave the stone unturned and/or forward things onto another agency to investigate.

Actually that is what they were doing. Every indication was that the FBI (ie not Mueller) was already looking into money laundering and things connected to Ukraine. Now a different group is getting into it. That's the Manafort and Podesta investigation. And money laundering in Ukraine has to do with Ukrainian elections, not US elections.

The Podesta's need a house call from the FBI

(10-24-2017 09:56 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The Podesta's need a house call from the FBI

What a sick phuck.

(10-24-2017 09:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is akin to you guys celebrating a dismal trump approval rating. If they're dirty, then Manafort is likely dirty, ergo trump is likely dirty.

But keep hope alive!

So, do you want dirty politicians brought to light or not?

Again with these ridiculous questions?

Gee RWT, do you want a criminal brought to light and charged? No, of course not...I'm for criminals!

Great. Then we have something in common. It's time to dig deep into the Clinton-Russia Uranium issue and file criminal charges if evidence of criminal wrong-doing exists.

(10-24-2017 11:05 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is akin to you guys celebrating a dismal trump approval rating. If they're dirty, then Manafort is likely dirty, ergo trump is likely dirty.

But keep hope alive!

So, do you want dirty politicians brought to light or not?

Again with these ridiculous questions?

Gee RWT, do you want a criminal brought to light and charged? No, of course not...I'm for criminals!

Great. Then we have something in common. It's time to dig deep into the Clinton-Russia Uranium issue and file criminal charges if evidence of criminal wrong-doing exists.

To the Demons happiness nothing will happen to Teflon Killery and her cronies.

Unfortunately.

Good. And if he finds any improprieties, lock him up too.

(10-24-2017 11:05 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is akin to you guys celebrating a dismal trump approval rating. If they're dirty, then Manafort is likely dirty, ergo trump is likely dirty.

But keep hope alive!

So, do you want dirty politicians brought to light or not?

Again with these ridiculous questions?

Gee RWT, do you want a criminal brought to light and charged? No, of course not...I'm for criminals!

Great. Then we have something in common. It's time to dig deep into the Clinton-Russia Uranium issue and file criminal charges if evidence of criminal wrong-doing exists.

Go right ahead. But you'd be wasting your time if you think you're going to get H on something with it. Clinton had nothing to do with the approval of that deal. It was not approved at the level of the SOS. That's just a fact.

Quote:One, Trump seemed to say that Clinton bears all of the responsibility for the deal’s approval. That is incorrect.

Clinton told a New Hampshire TV station in June 2015 that "I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did." And Jose Fernandez, who served as assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs under Clinton and represented the department on the panel, told the Times that Clinton "never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

But even if you don’t take either Clinton or Fernandez at their word, the reality is that the State Department was just one of nine government agencies that signed off on the transaction.

Second, while we concluded that nine people related the company did at some point donate to the Clinton Foundation, we found that the bulk of the $145 million came from Giustra. Guistra said he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007, "at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state" and three years before the Russian deal.

We couldn’t independently verify Giustra’s claim, but if he is telling the truth, the donation amount to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...and-urani/

(10-24-2017 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 11:05 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is akin to you guys celebrating a dismal trump approval rating. If they're dirty, then Manafort is likely dirty, ergo trump is likely dirty.

But keep hope alive!

So, do you want dirty politicians brought to light or not?

Again with these ridiculous questions?

Gee RWT, do you want a criminal brought to light and charged? No, of course not...I'm for criminals!

Great. Then we have something in common. It's time to dig deep into the Clinton-Russia Uranium issue and file criminal charges if evidence of criminal wrong-doing exists.

Go right ahead. But you'd be wasting your time if you think you're going to get H on something with it. Clinton had nothing to do with the approval of that deal. It was not approved at the level of the SOS. That's just a fact.

Quote:One, Trump seemed to say that Clinton bears all of the responsibility for the deal’s approval. That is incorrect.

Clinton told a New Hampshire TV station in June 2015 that "I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did." And Jose Fernandez, who served as assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs under Clinton and represented the department on the panel, told the Times that Clinton "never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

But even if you don’t take either Clinton or Fernandez at their word, the reality is that the State Department was just one of nine government agencies that signed off on the transaction.

Second, while we concluded that nine people related the company did at some point donate to the Clinton Foundation, we found that the bulk of the $145 million came from Giustra. Guistra said he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007, "at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state" and three years before the Russian deal.

We couldn’t independently verify Giustra’s claim, but if he is telling the truth, the donation amount to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...and-urani/

Actually, I won't be the one leading the investigation.

And fortunately it won't be a BHO Administration team leading the investigation.