That is a biggie!!!!! At least one phone call to the White House too...............


DJT was riiiggggghhhhtttttt!!!!!

He was wiretapped. Not as a candidate though. As a sitting President. Holy SHMOKIES!


Can you say RICO?

lol....Just because your paranoid doesnt mean they arent out to get you. I wonder what evidence was used to obtain a wiretap and is anything in a wiretap between a lawyer and his client even admissable--in fact---does it effectively eliminate any evidence that can be traced back to that call (fruit of the poison tree). This continues to butress what I thought all along. Raiding Cohens office indicates they have effectively given up on getting Trump. The only shot at Trump is catch him in a perjury trap.

(05-03-2018 12:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That is a biggie!!!!! At least one phone call to the White House too...............


DJT was riiiggggghhhhtttttt!!!!!

He was wiretapped. Not as a candidate though. As a sitting President. Holy SHMOKIES!


Can you say RICO?

Can you say COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS?

No wait.

Can you say OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

No wait.

Can you say RICO?



You're an asshat Mach.

(05-03-2018 12:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That is a biggie!!!!! At least one phone call to the White House too...............


DJT was riiiggggghhhhtttttt!!!!!

He was wiretapped. Not as a candidate though. As a sitting President. Holy SHMOKIES!


Can you say RICO?

Yep. Lock Mueller up for RICO.

Asshat.................??????


Hardly

https://sidebarsblog.com/rico-mueller-tr...stigation/

Mach, you are going to have to slow down before you have a stroke.

Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act in 1970. As its name suggests, RICO’s primary purpose was to give the federal government new tools to prosecute criminal groups, such as organized crime families, seeking to infiltrate and control legitimate organizations. But the breadth of RICO’s language has made it possible for prosecutors to apply it in more routine white collar business and corruption cases as well.

RICO doesn’t really define a new crime. Instead, it prohibits engaging in a sustained pattern of already criminal activity in connection with a business or other “enterprise.” This has led one prominent commentator to characterize RICO as “the crime of being a criminal.” RICO provides hefty penalties of up to twenty years in prison, as well as forfeiture of any assets related to or derived from the criminal activity.

Every RICO case shares two requirements: proof of an “enterprise,” and proof of a “pattern of racketeering activity.”


Asshat??????.................. just because you don't like the charges no need for personal attacks....... this is how they bring down mafia Dons...... The con in chief is much much much worse if these charges lead back to Russia.............

Gentleman do any of you realize how strong of a case they must have to get a judge to approve a wiretap of the President's personal lawyer?

(05-03-2018 01:04 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Mach, you are going to have to slow down before you have a stroke.

Or wait for Mueller's report....

(05-03-2018 01:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Gentleman do any of you realize how strong of a case they must have to get a judge to approve a wiretap of the President's personal lawyer?

I dunno I mean one got signed off based off a DNC hit piece.

(05-03-2018 12:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That is a biggie!!!!! At least one phone call to the White House too...............


DJT was riiiggggghhhhtttttt!!!!!

He was wiretapped. Not as a candidate though. As a sitting President. Holy SHMOKIES!


Can you say RICO?

Cat chasing laser meme

(05-03-2018 01:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Gentleman do any of you realize how strong of a case they must have to get a judge to approve a wiretap of the President's personal lawyer?

you just have to find one.

(05-03-2018 01:16 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 01:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Gentleman do any of you realize how strong of a case they must have to get a judge to approve a wiretap of the President's personal lawyer?

you just have to find one.

Got to be plenty of Obama and Clinton appointees that are.........uhum.........."impartial".

I'd be curious as to when it was authorized, who asked/who authorized, and the grounds. Does also make me wonder about attorney-client privilege practices being ignored..

(05-03-2018 01:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Gentleman do any of you realize how strong of a case they must have to get a judge to approve a wiretap of the President's personal lawyer?

Im' guessing about as strong of a case where a judge approves a FISA wiretap based on a fake dossier?

It's fun watching democrats cheer for kgb tactics

Democrats hate America

They have evidence of wrong doing by Cohen. They are investigating him. Doesn't have anything to do with Trump.

(05-03-2018 01:21 PM)Paul M Wrote:  They have evidence of wrong doing by Cohen. They are investigating him. Doesn't have anything to do with Trump.

That is a possibility.

wait... we are back to RICO...

(05-03-2018 01:29 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  wait... we are back to RICO...

La, de, da............