Assuming this is legit upload from USA Today.

Page 1 and top of 2.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4...otion.html

in which he moves to preclude: (1) evidence or argument concerning Manafort’s or the Donald J.
Trump presidential campaign’s alleged collusion with the Russian Government (as well as
Manafort’s work for the campaign)

Manafort’s first motion seeks to preclude evidence or argument on two subjects: collusion

with the Russian government, and Manafort’s role in the Trump campaign. The government does
not intend to present in its case-in-chief evidence or argument concerning collusion with the
Russian government and, accordingly, does not oppose Manafort’s motion in that respect.

Reminds of the Arms dealer that the DOJ went after for 3 years as a smoke screen to cover Hillary's illegal weapons smuggling in Libya. The DOJ dropped to case right before the election in 2016. They put the guy in bankruptcy.

(07-25-2018 11:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Assuming this is legit upload from USA Today.

Page 1 and top of 2.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4...otion.html

in which he moves to preclude: (1) evidence or argument concerning Manafort’s or the Donald J.
Trump presidential campaign’s alleged collusion with the Russian Government (as well as
Manafort’s work for the campaign)

Manafort’s first motion seeks to preclude evidence or argument on two subjects: collusion

with the Russian government, and Manafort’s role in the Trump campaign. The government does
not intend to present in its case-in-chief evidence or argument concerning collusion with the
Russian government and, accordingly, does not oppose Manafort’s motion in that respect.

Reminds of the Arms dealer that the DOJ went after for 3 years as a smoke screen to cover Hillary's illegal weapons smuggling in Libya. The DOJ dropped to case right before the election in 2016. They put the guy in bankruptcy.

Its just for Manaforts trial. They're agreeing they wont talk about collusion in his trial. Thats because his case has nothing to do with Russia. He was a lobbyist for Ukraine.

(07-25-2018 11:43 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 11:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Assuming this is legit upload from USA Today.

Page 1 and top of 2.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4...otion.html

in which he moves to preclude: (1) evidence or argument concerning Manafort’s or the Donald J.
Trump presidential campaign’s alleged collusion with the Russian Government (as well as
Manafort’s work for the campaign)

Manafort’s first motion seeks to preclude evidence or argument on two subjects: collusion

with the Russian government, and Manafort’s role in the Trump campaign. The government does
not intend to present in its case-in-chief evidence or argument concerning collusion with the
Russian government and, accordingly, does not oppose Manafort’s motion in that respect.

Reminds of the Arms dealer that the DOJ went after for 3 years as a smoke screen to cover Hillary's illegal weapons smuggling in Libya. The DOJ dropped to case right before the election in 2016. They put the guy in bankruptcy.

Its just for Manaforts trial. They're agreeing they wont talk about collusion in his trial. Thats because his case has nothing to do with Russia. He was a lobbyist for Ukraine.

Trump is agreeing with the interview with Mueller as well, as long as the collusion aspect is dropped. Edit: maybe if obstruction is dropped. Which would be bigger because all they would have left is collusoin, which isnt a crime.

I still say let Mula go pound sand. Anything that Dip does is DNC propaganda/led.

Actually old news. I posted those comments the prosecutor made to the judge in the Manafort case a week or two ago. So yes, Bueller has admitted that there was no collusion at least as it relates to how he plans to prosecute Manafort.

(07-25-2018 12:34 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually old news. I posted those comments the prosecutor made to the judge in the Manafort case a week or two ago. So yes, Bueller has admitted that there was no collusion at least as it relates to how he plans to prosecute Manafort.

Right. Besides, I don't think anyone is sure collusion is even a crime.

(07-25-2018 12:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 12:34 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually old news. I posted those comments the prosecutor made to the judge in the Manafort case a week or two ago. So yes, Bueller has admitted that there was no collusion at least as it relates to how he plans to prosecute Manafort.

Right. Besides, I don't think anyone is sure collusion is even a crime.

Collusion is not a crime, which is why this whole thing is a witch hunt.

(07-25-2018 12:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 12:34 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually old news. I posted those comments the prosecutor made to the judge in the Manafort case a week or two ago. So yes, Bueller has admitted that there was no collusion at least as it relates to how he plans to prosecute Manafort.

Right. Besides, I don't think anyone is sure collusion is even a crime.

It's not a crime, but if it makes Trump look evil and explains away the train wreck that was the Cankles Campaign, then run with it.

no collusion
no obstruction
comey's a leaker

(07-25-2018 01:06 PM)Kronke Wrote:  no collusion
no obstruction
comey's a leaker

Two scoops
Two terms
Two genders?

Wrong thread?

(07-25-2018 01:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 01:06 PM)Kronke Wrote:  no collusion
no obstruction
comey's a leaker

Two scoops
Two terms
Two genders?

Wrong thread?

Two justices

(07-25-2018 01:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 01:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 01:06 PM)Kronke Wrote:  no collusion
no obstruction
comey's a leaker

Two scoops
Two terms
Two genders?

Wrong thread?

Two justices per term

boom!

No need to talk to Mueller. If he has evidence of a crime, let him lay it out. The problem is there is too much chance of Mueller trying to twist Trump up in an effort to illicit answers that get Trump to contradict himself somehow. He may try to embarrass him into saying something stupid. Bottom line---there is nothing to gain and everything to lose in sitting down with the Mueller team.

(07-25-2018 01:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No need to talk to Mueller. If he has evidence of a crime, let him lay it out. The problem is there is too much chance of Mueller trying to twist Trump up in an effort to illicit answers that get Trump to contradict himself somehow. He may try to embarrass him into saying something stupid. Bottom line---there is nothing to gain and everything to lose in sitting down with the Mueller team.

If it happens it won't be under oath and attorneys will be present.

(07-25-2018 12:52 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 12:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 12:34 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually old news. I posted those comments the prosecutor made to the judge in the Manafort case a week or two ago. So yes, Bueller has admitted that there was no collusion at least as it relates to how he plans to prosecute Manafort.

Right. Besides, I don't think anyone is sure collusion is even a crime.

It's not a crime, but if it makes Trump look evil and explains away the train wreck that was the Cankles Campaign, then run with it.

You're seriously still using this talking point?

This must be the “move on” in moveon.org.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(07-25-2018 12:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 12:34 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually old news. I posted those comments the prosecutor made to the judge in the Manafort case a week or two ago. So yes, Bueller has admitted that there was no collusion at least as it relates to how he plans to prosecute Manafort.

Right. Besides, I don't think anyone is sure collusion is even a crime.

So it shouldn’t bother anybody.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(07-25-2018 01:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 12:52 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 12:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 12:34 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually old news. I posted those comments the prosecutor made to the judge in the Manafort case a week or two ago. So yes, Bueller has admitted that there was no collusion at least as it relates to how he plans to prosecute Manafort.

Right. Besides, I don't think anyone is sure collusion is even a crime.

It's not a crime, but if it makes Trump look evil and explains away the train wreck that was the Cankles Campaign, then run with it.

You're seriously still using this talking point?

Why not? She is.