(03-19-2018 06:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Greed and corruption. We all complain about it, except when someone does something about it and our boy is the target.

If Mueller can't nail Trump, I pray he'll get Kushner.

Why would you “pray” he gets Kushner?

What’s the guy ever done to you, or done to harm anyone? I’d never heard of the guy until 2-3 yrs ago when we were told to wait for the coronation.

What’s with the animosity towards Jared Kushner?

You jelly, bro? Sound like you may be jelly(?).

(03-20-2018 10:52 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 07:31 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 05:43 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Who said she was innocent of all wrong doing? If you're refering to Comey, he never said that. He said he couldn't prove a case in court. Two different things.

Largely in part to the way the interview was conducted (as well as the entire investigation). Don't put Hillary under oath and record the interview, and the possibility of a process crime goes right out the window. Sad thing is they aren't even trying to be sly about it. Fix was in from the start, HRC was never to be charged or prosecuted, interview wrapped up as a formality without documentation; meanwhile we are approaching 2 years of investigation into Trump without any evidence but still digging.

Indeed. Contrast that to Flynn. Interview him without telling him they're there doing an investigation, later the agents express concern that he may have not lied at all, then hound him and his son until they force him to the point of bankruptcy to plead guilty to lying to them.
The whole friggin' thing stinks like a rotten rat and brought to us by our premier investigative agency.

It really is Nazi stuff. The SS and all that. That's exactly how they did it.

So what about Gowdy's never ending, fruitless investigation? Did he make procedural mistakes too?

You guys are way to paranoid "fix was in from the start"? really?

(03-20-2018 11:41 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  So what about Gowdy's never ending, fruitless investigation? Did he make procedural mistakes too?
You guys are way to paranoid "fix was in from the start"? really?

Gowdy doesn't have the power that a special prosecutor has. And the executive branch agency like FBI can pretty much circle the wagons and hide the pea from a congressional investigation.

(03-20-2018 10:59 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 06:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Greed and corruption. We all complain about it, except when someone does something about it and our boy is the target.

If Mueller can't nail Trump, I pray he'll get Kushner.

Why would you “pray” he gets Kushner?

What’s the guy ever done to you, or done to harm anyone? I’d never heard of the guy until 2-3 yrs ago when we were told to wait for the coronation.

What’s with the animosity towards Jared Kushner?

You jelly, bro? Sound like you may be jelly(?).

Yeah OD, show us on the doll where Kushner touched you.

(03-20-2018 12:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 10:59 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 06:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Greed and corruption. We all complain about it, except when someone does something about it and our boy is the target.

If Mueller can't nail Trump, I pray he'll get Kushner.

Why would you “pray” he gets Kushner?

What’s the guy ever done to you, or done to harm anyone? I’d never heard of the guy until 2-3 yrs ago when we were told to wait for the coronation.

What’s with the animosity towards Jared Kushner?

You jelly, bro? Sound like you may be jelly(?).

Yeah OD, show us on the doll where Kushner touched you.

(03-20-2018 10:59 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 06:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Greed and corruption. We all complain about it, except when someone does something about it and our boy is the target.

If Mueller can't nail Trump, I pray he'll get Kushner.

Why would you “pray” he gets Kushner?

What’s the guy ever done to you, or done to harm anyone? I’d never heard of the guy until 2-3 yrs ago when we were told to wait for the coronation.

What’s with the animosity towards Jared Kushner?

You jelly, bro? Sound like you may be jelly(?).

The MSM has said Jared is bad so like the good leftist sheep he is he hates his guts.

(03-20-2018 12:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 10:59 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 06:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Greed and corruption. We all complain about it, except when someone does something about it and our boy is the target.

If Mueller can't nail Trump, I pray he'll get Kushner.

Why would you “pray” he gets Kushner?

What’s the guy ever done to you, or done to harm anyone? I’d never heard of the guy until 2-3 yrs ago when we were told to wait for the coronation.

What’s with the animosity towards Jared Kushner?

You jelly, bro? Sound like you may be jelly(?).

Yeah OD, show us on the doll where Kushner touched you.

OD might just be jealous of Kushners great looking wife and how classy she is.That's probably the reason for so much hate. He probably can't even get a date much less a wife. Just saying.

(03-19-2018 11:19 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  So, some legal eagle on here can address this better than I, but I wonder if the Dossier turns out to have been illegally contrived and the dossier is the legal basis for the Mueller investigation, does this poison all evidenced subsequently obtained? I know if the evidence would have been uncovered anyhow, it can be used.

I guess I'm wondering how and why Mueller has proceeded with his investigation if it's as tainted as the cons claim (hope)?

Thoughts

Why would an investigator stop an investigation until he's told to do so?

Why would he be told to do so until such a legal determination is made?

In this case, unlike any normal litigation, who would make such a determination?

You're trying to make a point by conflating arguments and jurisdiction.

The REAL question is, why it takes so much money and time and energy to come up with evidence against Trump when we very quickly came up with evidence that it was Russia.

The argument essentially is that the Trump organization 'must be' better at covering their trail than Russia, whom we have almost no jurisdiction over to compel ANY cooperation.

(03-19-2018 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 11:39 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 11:36 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Its not illegal to hire an investigator to dig up dirt on a political opponent.

Is it illegal to collude with foreign nationals to try to affect the outcome of an election?

I don't believe there is any criminal statue for that. Perhaps one of our resident lawyers can clarify.

Then what is the Trump investigation over?

(03-19-2018 06:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Greed and corruption. We all complain about it, except when someone does something about it and our boy is the target.

If Mueller can't nail Trump, I pray he'll get Kushner.

I pray he convicts the guilty and no-bills the 'not' since that's his job. Treat Trump with the same discretion we treated Hillary.

but that's just me

(03-20-2018 05:43 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Who said she was innocent of all wrong doing? If you're refering to Comey, he never said that. He said he couldn't prove a case in court. Two different things.

Sounds very clear to me as if you and many like you took this position with Hillary, but wouldn't accept it with Trump. See your earlier line

(03-20-2018 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 11:19 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  So, some legal eagle on here can address this better than I, but I wonder if the Dossier turns out to have been illegally contrived and the dossier is the legal basis for the Mueller investigation, does this poison all evidenced subsequently obtained? I know if the evidence would have been uncovered anyhow, it can be used.

I guess I'm wondering how and why Mueller has proceeded with his investigation if it's as tainted as the cons claim (hope)?

Thoughts

Why would an investigator stop an investigation until he's told to do so?

Why would he be told to do so until such a legal determination is made?

In this case, unlike any normal litigation, who would make such a determination?

You're trying to make a point by conflating arguments and jurisdiction.

The REAL question is, why it takes so much money and time and energy to come up with evidence against Trump when we very quickly came up with evidence that it was Russia.

The argument essentially is that the Trump organization 'must be' better at covering their trail than Russia, whom we have almost no jurisdiction over to compel ANY cooperation.

(03-19-2018 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 11:39 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 11:36 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Its not illegal to hire an investigator to dig up dirt on a political opponent.

Is it illegal to collude with foreign nationals to try to affect the outcome of an election?

I don't believe there is any criminal statue for that. Perhaps one of our resident lawyers can clarify.

Then what is the Trump investigation over?

(03-19-2018 06:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Greed and corruption. We all complain about it, except when someone does something about it and our boy is the target.

If Mueller can't nail Trump, I pray he'll get Kushner.

I pray he convicts the guilty and no-bills the 'not' since that's his job. Treat Trump with the same discretion we treated Hillary.

but that's just me

(03-20-2018 05:43 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Who said she was innocent of all wrong doing? If you're refering to Comey, he never said that. He said he couldn't prove a case in court. Two different things.

Sounds very clear to me as if you and many like you took this position with Hillary, but wouldn't accept it with Trump. See your earlier line

You're wrong here. I detest Hillary and would be more than happy to see her tried and convicted. Same with Trump. If Mueller can't make a case he should not indict. Simple.
The investigation no longer deals with Russian election collusion. It seems pretty clear it's now a financial investigation, possible money laundering.

(03-20-2018 12:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 12:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 10:59 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 06:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Greed and corruption. We all complain about it, except when someone does something about it and our boy is the target.

If Mueller can't nail Trump, I pray he'll get Kushner.

Why would you “pray” he gets Kushner?

What’s the guy ever done to you, or done to harm anyone? I’d never heard of the guy until 2-3 yrs ago when we were told to wait for the coronation.

What’s with the animosity towards Jared Kushner?

You jelly, bro? Sound like you may be jelly(?).

Yeah OD, show us on the doll where Kushner touched you.

I remember you using this line before. It was funny then, now just sad. Come up with some new material.
Kind of like Dunk with the silly Jelly bro nonsense. He's used it before. You guys need to either work harder or post less. The quality is slipping.

(03-20-2018 02:56 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 12:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 12:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 10:59 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 06:52 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Greed and corruption. We all complain about it, except when someone does something about it and our boy is the target.

If Mueller can't nail Trump, I pray he'll get Kushner.

Why would you “pray” he gets Kushner?

What’s the guy ever done to you, or done to harm anyone? I’d never heard of the guy until 2-3 yrs ago when we were told to wait for the coronation.

What’s with the animosity towards Jared Kushner?

You jelly, bro? Sound like you may be jelly(?).

Yeah OD, show us on the doll where Kushner touched you.

I remember you using this line before. It was funny then, now just sad. Come up with some new material.
Kind of like Dunk with the silly Jelly bro nonsense. He's used it before. You guys need to either work harder or post less. The quality is slipping.

I'm sure someone here used it before, but not me. I don't think I've ever seen a better setup than the one you gave me.

BTW, why do you hate Kushner so much? I couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

(03-20-2018 02:47 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  You're wrong here. I detest Hillary and would be more than happy to see her tried and convicted. Same with Trump. If Mueller can't make a case he should not indict. Simple.
The investigation no longer deals with Russian election collusion. It seems pretty clear it's now a financial investigation, possible money laundering.

My apologies then... didn't seem that way, but perhaps i was unfair.

As to the latter, I wish more people agreed. The investigation has gone a long way away from Trump, so the only inferences now seem to be 'the company he keeps'... as if THAT is something new/only related to Trump...

The debate certainly deflects from Trump's agenda... which is of course why the left (and frankly the right as well) keeps going on about it. When they indict some random person for conspiracy to launder money, the investigation will once again morph and become about something else as well.

At least with Whitewater that turned into MonicaGate, the ultimate charge WAS directly related to Clinton... not someone whom he trusted, but him. It too was a massive waste of time and resources... not justifying it at all... I just thought we all would have learned something from it.

(03-19-2018 01:12 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Nor is there a federal crime of "conspiracy against the United States", though that didn't stop Bueller from charging Manafort and Gates with it.

In the end though, I guess it got the desired result as guys like Mach were here literally crying, "how could you support anyone who was charged with such a horrible crime".

FWIW

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

Quote:If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

(03-20-2018 05:03 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:12 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Nor is there a federal crime of "conspiracy against the United States", though that didn't stop Bueller from charging Manafort and Gates with it.

In the end though, I guess it got the desired result as guys like Mach were here literally crying, "how could you support anyone who was charged with such a horrible crime".

FWIW

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

Quote:If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Okay, but from what I read, they were charged with "conspiracy against the United States", specifically, in those words. I linked one of those stories, don't recall if it was that one in particular.....Brian York author.

(03-20-2018 05:09 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 05:03 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:12 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Nor is there a federal crime of "conspiracy against the United States", though that didn't stop Bueller from charging Manafort and Gates with it.

In the end though, I guess it got the desired result as guys like Mach were here literally crying, "how could you support anyone who was charged with such a horrible crime".

FWIW

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

Quote:If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Okay, but from what I read, they were charged with "conspiracy against the United States", specifically, in those words. I linked one of those stories, don't recall if it was that one in particular.....Brian York author.

I'm going to assume that is the wording that is used publicly because its easier for people to understand. Legal wording gets really really wonky at times. The fact is you can't indict someone without a Statute. Its literally not possible, you can't fill out the paperwork for the indictment to even be heard by a Grand Jurty without it. A grand jury cannot approve an indictment that doesn't have a statute attached to it. That's the whole point of an indictment, the State/Gov says 'We believe we have enough evidence to prove that this person violated this exact law.' What the Attorney says to the press guys outside the office and they write in a newspaper... is meaningless.
I'm not dying those may have been the words Mueller said in an interview, but whatever legal expert says 'that doesn't exist' is in my opinion... is being pedantically technical to disprove a casual non technical statement to the press. ie, using the letter of the comment to try to debate the spirit of the comment. As to why... probably because he like everyone else has a political opinion/agenda like everyone else involved in the gov and he would prefer things be different.

(03-20-2018 05:25 PM)q5sys Wrote:  I'm going to assume that is the wording that is used publicly because its easier for people to understand. Legal wording gets really really wonky at times. The fact is you can't indict someone without a Statute. Its literally not possible, you can't fill out the paperwork for the indictment to even be heard by a Grand Jurty without it. A grand jury cannot approve an indictment that doesn't have a statute attached to it. That's the whole point of an indictment, the State/Gov says 'We believe we have enough evidence to prove that this person violated this exact law.' What the Attorney says to the press guys outside the office and they write in a newspaper... is meaningless.
I'm not dying those may have been the words Mueller said in an interview, but whatever legal expert says 'that doesn't exist' is in my opinion... is being pedantically technical to disprove a casual non technical statement to the press. ie, using the letter of the comment to try to debate the spirit of the comment. As to why... probably because he like everyone else has a political opinion/agenda like everyone else involved in the gov and he would prefer things be different.

Here's the quote to which I was referring:

Quote:Both Gates and Manafort were charged with something called "conspiracy against the United States." As the former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, "there is no such offense in federal law as 'conspiracy against the United States.'" But Mueller's office described their alleged crimes that way, and some media commentators liked the treason-ish sound of the phrase.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini...-colluding

Here's the article by Andrew McCarthy on the subject of Mueller's tactics:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/m...standards/

Yeah, you need to read that McCarthy piece, it's above my pay grade.

And here's his comments on the statute you mentioned, they mirror yours:

Quote:As I pointed out when Mueller first indicted Manafort and Gates, there is no such offense in federal law as “conspiracy against the United States.” What Section 371 criminalizes (besides the afore-described conspiracy “to commit any offense” under federal penal law) is conspiracy “to defraud the United States” (emphasis added).

so the point he's making is that the conspiracy must be to DEFRAUD the US?