It seems clear to me Mueller has moved into a financial investigation of Trumps business dealings with the Russians.

Let's say Trump is never indicted. However, his son-in-law and possibly others are. Would this investigation have been worthwhile?

(03-19-2018 12:17 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  It seems clear to me Mueller has moved into a financial investigation of Trumps business dealings with the Russians.

Let's say Trump is never indicted. However, his son-in-law and possibly others are. Would this investigation have been worthwhile?

It already has been.

(03-19-2018 12:17 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Let's say Trump is never indicted. However, his son-in-law and possibly others are. Would this investigation have been worthwhile?

While Democrats, who clearly and unabiguously colluded to on the !RUSSIA! narrative, go scot free?

It would be an example of how we continue to have the the Deep State government, which is quite convinced that they are super-smart, virtuous, and competent, continuing to be baffled at why people do not trust the Deep State government and in fact have the people deny that they are super-smart, virtuous, and competent.

Regardless of preference, that's a lot of wood or alot of bush.

(03-19-2018 12:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:06 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  ...her original claim was the Russians must have hacked into electronic voting machines to change vote totals.

Source?

While I am a stone-cold purveyor of unassailable fact, I am also scrupulously polite to a fault. So without further comment I point you to this well know fact

Quote:Within 24 hours of Clinton’s concession speech, top officials gathered “to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up.… Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/russia...than-fact/

(03-19-2018 12:27 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:06 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  ...her original claim was the Russians must have hacked into electronic voting machines to change vote totals.

Source?

While I am a stone-cold purveyor of unassailable fact, I am also scrupulously polite to a fault. So without further comment I point you to this well know fact

Quote:Within 24 hours of Clinton’s concession speech, top officials gathered “to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up.… Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/russia...than-fact/

A search of your linked article found no instances of the words "change," "votes" or "machines."

Lotsa nasty fruits in the dem tree. That's for damn sure

(03-19-2018 12:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  A search of your linked article found no instances of the words "change," "votes" or "machines."

Let me get this straight:

Democrat operatives, November 7, 2016: “Our electoral system is rock solid, there is no election fraud, the results we get are impeccable, and failing to accept its results is paranoia and maybe treason.

Democrat operatives, November 26, 2016: “We can not accept the results of the election in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, because our election system is rife with fraud and easily hacked by… Russians”.

(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.

(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 fabricate the dirt, feed it to the investigator, and then use the dirt as evidence to get wiretap warrants?

(03-19-2018 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:17 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  It seems clear to me Mueller has moved into a financial investigation of Trumps business dealings with the Russians.

Let's say Trump is never indicted. However, his son-in-law and possibly others are. Would this investigation have been worthwhile?

It already has been.

The investigation was supposed to be about team Trump colluding with Russians to throw the election. Even RWT admits now that that's a long shot. Next it was obstruction of justice though that too seems to be waning. Now we'll move into Trump's financial dealings, though I'm not convinced the investigation will center on Russian contacts. With Bueller's history, he'll probably dig back a decade or two until he can find what he's after.

Ken Starr's investigation made for great fun for some of us but what did it prove? Bill Clinton was a liar? Wow, a politician is capable of lying, who knew? Bill Clinton liked bearded clams and soggy cigars? Wow, who knew men could do some pervested shyte with wimmen? Hillary Clinton ran interference so her husband could continue his abusive habits? Wow, who knew? That was her life story.

I hated the community organizer as much as the next guy and being 100% sure that he was a marxist and wanted to change the country for the worse, I still believed he had his mandate (an electoral college victory) and should be allowed to govern as those who elected him so wished. Fortunately, it turned out that he had lied to his supporters and not only continued many of W's policies I was in agreement with, he doubled down on many of them.

I would not have been in favor of using a special prosecutor to hound the Magic Man from day one to try to keep him from doing his job just as I'm not in favor of this one. However, seeing that so many on the left are just fine with the practice, I'm warming up to the idea of doing so the next time, god forbid, a liberal wins the White House.

(03-19-2018 12:20 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:17 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Let's say Trump is never indicted. However, his son-in-law and possibly others are. Would this investigation have been worthwhile?

While Democrats, who clearly and unabiguously colluded to on the !RUSSIA! narrative, go scot free?

It would be an example of how we continue to have the the Deep State government, which is quite convinced that they are super-smart, virtuous, and competent, continuing to be baffled at why people do not trust the Deep State government and in fact have the people deny that they are super-smart, virtuous, and competent.

Cons on this board have religiously pointed out that collusion is not a crime. Distasteful? hell yes. Illegal? no

(03-19-2018 01:05 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:20 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:17 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Let's say Trump is never indicted. However, his son-in-law and possibly others are. Would this investigation have been worthwhile?

While Democrats, who clearly and unabiguously colluded to on the !RUSSIA! narrative, go scot free?

It would be an example of how we continue to have the the Deep State government, which is quite convinced that they are super-smart, virtuous, and competent, continuing to be baffled at why people do not trust the Deep State government and in fact have the people deny that they are super-smart, virtuous, and competent.

Cons on this board have religiously pointed out that collusion is not a crime. Distasteful? hell yes. Illegal? no

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".

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

(03-19-2018 12:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  A search of your linked article found no instances of the words "change," "votes" or "machines."

Let me get this straight:

Democrat operatives, November 7, 2016: “Our electoral system is rock solid, there is no election fraud, the results we get are impeccable, and failing to accept its results is paranoia and maybe treason.

Democrat operatives, November 26, 2016: “We can not accept the results of the election in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, because our election system is rife with fraud and easily hacked by… Russians”.

Who specifically said those quoted words? The only place I see your quoted text is on some obscure blog which you lifted from verbatim, punctuation mistakes and all.

Your original implication is that either Hillary or someone directly associated with her campaign said that voting machines were hacked and votes were changed.

Now cite it or correct your assertion. Thanks.

(03-19-2018 01:03 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:17 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  It seems clear to me Mueller has moved into a financial investigation of Trumps business dealings with the Russians.

Let's say Trump is never indicted. However, his son-in-law and possibly others are. Would this investigation have been worthwhile?

It already has been.

The investigation was supposed to be about team Trump colluding with Russians to throw the election. Even RWT admits now that that's a long shot. Next it was obstruction of justice though that too seems to be waning. Now we'll move into Trump's financial dealings, though I'm not convinced the investigation will center on Russian contacts. With Bueller's history, he'll probably dig back a decade or two until he can find what he's after.

Ken Starr's investigation made for great fun for some of us but what did it prove? Bill Clinton was a liar? Wow, a politician is capable of lying, who knew? Bill Clinton liked bearded clams and soggy cigars? Wow, who knew men could do some pervested shyte with wimmen? Hillary Clinton ran interference so her husband could continue his abusive habits? Wow, who knew? That was her life story.

I hated the community organizer as much as the next guy and being 100% sure that he was a marxist and wanted to change the country for the worse, I still believed he had his mandate (an electoral college victory) and should be allowed to govern as those who elected him so wished. Fortunately, it turned out that he had lied to his supporters and not only continued many of W's policies I was in agreement with, he doubled down on many of them.

I would not have been in favor of using a special prosecutor to hound the Magic Man from day one to try to keep him from doing his job just as I'm not in favor of this one. However, seeing that so many on the left are just fine with the practice, I'm warming up to the idea of doing so the next time, god forbid, a liberal wins the White House.

You missed something.

Quote:APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-releas...1/download

(03-19-2018 01:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:03 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:17 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  It seems clear to me Mueller has moved into a financial investigation of Trumps business dealings with the Russians.

Let's say Trump is never indicted. However, his son-in-law and possibly others are. Would this investigation have been worthwhile?

It already has been.

The investigation was supposed to be about team Trump colluding with Russians to throw the election. Even RWT admits now that that's a long shot. Next it was obstruction of justice though that too seems to be waning. Now we'll move into Trump's financial dealings, though I'm not convinced the investigation will center on Russian contacts. With Bueller's history, he'll probably dig back a decade or two until he can find what he's after.

Ken Starr's investigation made for great fun for some of us but what did it prove? Bill Clinton was a liar? Wow, a politician is capable of lying, who knew? Bill Clinton liked bearded clams and soggy cigars? Wow, who knew men could do some pervested shyte with wimmen? Hillary Clinton ran interference so her husband could continue his abusive habits? Wow, who knew? That was her life story.

I hated the community organizer as much as the next guy and being 100% sure that he was a marxist and wanted to change the country for the worse, I still believed he had his mandate (an electoral college victory) and should be allowed to govern as those who elected him so wished. Fortunately, it turned out that he had lied to his supporters and not only continued many of W's policies I was in agreement with, he doubled down on many of them.

I would not have been in favor of using a special prosecutor to hound the Magic Man from day one to try to keep him from doing his job just as I'm not in favor of this one. However, seeing that so many on the left are just fine with the practice, I'm warming up to the idea of doing so the next time, god forbid, a liberal wins the White House.

You missed something.

Quote:APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-releas...1/download

Fine, splain me how what Manafort and Gates did years ago is tied to Russian interference in the 2016 election. As you're aware, I believe we're well beyond that now and it's past time to shut it down.

However, as I stated above, I like the concept and hope it'll be used next time someone like Bernie Sanders is elected prez.

(03-19-2018 01:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Your original implication is that either Hillary or someone directly associated with her campaign said that voting machines were hacked and votes were changed.

Now cite it or correct your assertion. Thanks.

Hilary didn't say it as far as I can find. I'd assumed we are all sufficiently facile with language to use metaphors and broad based statements in off the cuff commenting, but that's certainly not best practice.

Bad Stanley. You win.

But Hilary Clinton will never be President. I win! ;.)

(03-19-2018 01:23 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Your original implication is that either Hillary or someone directly associated with her campaign said that voting machines were hacked and votes were changed.

Now cite it or correct your assertion. Thanks.

Hilary didn't say it as far as I can find. I'd assumed we are all sufficiently facile with language to use metaphors and broad based statements in off the cuff commenting, but that's certainly not best practice.

Bad Stanley. You win.

But Hilary Clinton will never be President. I win! ;.)

You gave up too fast.

(03-19-2018 01:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-releas...1/download

lets see how "related maters" is defined.

Quote:§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

so...

any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

Question is what links and coordination have been proven?

now...

investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.


We appear to have Flynn (process crime) and George Papa (perjury). Other than that it's become a witch hunt. I see no reason for the investigation to continue into peripheral business transactions between Trump businesses and Russia that happened years or decades ago unless the Dems are saying that Trump laid his groundwork for a run at the presidency decades ago with dirty dealing with Russia.

Mueller's time should be up. All this is now is a concerted effort to undermine the president and make it hard for him to do his job.

(03-19-2018 01:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-releas...1/download

lets see how "related maters" is defined.

Quote:§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

so...

any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

Question is what links and coordination have been proven?

now...

investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.


We appear to have Flynn (process crime) and George Papa (perjury). Other than that it's become a witch hunt. I see no reason for the investigation to continue into peripheral business transactions between Trump businesses and Russia that happened years or decades ago unless the Dems are saying that Trump laid his groundwork for a run at the presidency decades ago with dirty dealing with Russia.

Mueller's time should be up. All this is now is a concerted effort to undermine the president and make it hard for him to do his job.