Everybody should we weary of drawing too much of an inference from this case in regards to Trump.

(08-01-2018 08:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 04:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 11:04 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 10:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You need to tell SuperFlyBCat that.

Well aware that there was no collusion with the Russian government. Which begs the question, what the hell is Mueller and 13 other democrats doing with this investigation.

Not what I was referring to. You were implying this trial had something to do with collusion. It doesn't. And that in no way means or proves that there was no collusion with Russia.

But clearly the 13 other democrats on the panel and trying to stage a coup against trump.

Why was Mueller hired? Something about Russian collusion.

If you don't understand how special counsels work, I can't help you. You need to educate yourself. Or at least if you want to sound half-way intelligent anyway. And the authorization for the Special Counsel has been posted here many times. If you haven't read it by now, you should probably stop posting about it.

So you can't answer the question, lol.

(08-01-2018 02:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Everybody should we weary of drawing too much of an inference from this case in regards to Trump.

(08-01-2018 03:01 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 08:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 04:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 11:04 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Well aware that there was no collusion with the Russian government. Which begs the question, what the hell is Mueller and 13 other democrats doing with this investigation.

Not what I was referring to. You were implying this trial had something to do with collusion. It doesn't. And that in no way means or proves that there was no collusion with Russia.

But clearly the 13 other democrats on the panel and trying to stage a coup against trump.

Why was Mueller hired? Something about Russian collusion.

If you don't understand how special counsels work, I can't help you. You need to educate yourself. Or at least if you want to sound half-way intelligent anyway. And the authorization for the Special Counsel has been posted here many times. If you haven't read it by now, you should probably stop posting about it.

So you can't answer the question, lol.

I already have...countless times. And no, your ignorance here is not funny.

One more time for you:
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

(08-01-2018 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:01 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 08:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 04:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not what I was referring to. You were implying this trial had something to do with collusion. It doesn't. And that in no way means or proves that there was no collusion with Russia.

But clearly the 13 other democrats on the panel and trying to stage a coup against trump.

Why was Mueller hired? Something about Russian collusion.

If you don't understand how special counsels work, I can't help you. You need to educate yourself. Or at least if you want to sound half-way intelligent anyway. And the authorization for the Special Counsel has been posted here many times. If you haven't read it by now, you should probably stop posting about it.

So you can't answer the question, lol.

I already have...countless times. And no, your ignorance here is not funny.

One more time for you:
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

Manafort isn't on trial for anything related to that. Shameful behavior by our government.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/...-case.html

Quote:Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors were lectured by a federal judge on Wednesday for the language they’ve used in the courtroom and more, as the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort entered its second day.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III specifically told prosecutors to stop using the word “oligarch” to describe wealthy Ukrainians, whose dealings with Manafort are at the heart of the fraud charges he faces in northern Virginia federal court.

The judge said the term has a “pejorative” meaning and is not relevant in this case. Further, he cautioned that using it could suggest Manafort is associated with bad people – and guilty by association.

“It’s not the American way,” the judge said. He noted that wealthy donors like George Soros or the Koch brothers also could be considered oligarchs.

The Mueller team was later rebuffed again by Ellis when they tried to introduce photos that eventually would become public of Manafort’s closets filled with suits and high-end clothing.

While it’s part of their effort to paint Manafort as a tax scofflaw who spent big on luxury items, Ellis would not allow the photos for now.

“Enough is enough. We don’t convict people because they have a lot of money and throw it around,” he said.

The judge said the photos would seem “unnecessary, irrelevant” and potentially “prejudicial.” Further, he reminded the lawyers that Manafort “is not on trial for having a lavish lifestyle, but for not reporting income on his taxes.”

Team taint gets scolded two more times today by the judge.

Did not go well for team taint today. Not only did the judge have to reprimand them several times, but the prosecution now says that their star witness (Manaforts former business partner) may not be called to testify. When reporters heard the news, they rushed out of the courtroom to report the news, and the judge said it looked like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/...lings.html

In a shocking admission Wednesday morning, federal prosecutors said Rick Gates may not testify in the trial of his former business partner Paul Manafort.

Mr. Gates, who oversaw some of the financial dealings of Mr. Manafort’s consulting business, was expected to be a key witness for the government.

But prosecutor Uso Asonye said jurors may not hear from Mr. Gates after all.

“He may testify, he may not,” Mr. Asonye told Judge T.S. Ellis III.

The revelation sent journalists and others out of the courtroom to report the disclosure.

“That’s news to me and about 25 others who scurried out of here like rats on a sinking ship,” Judge Ellis shot back.

Mr. Asonye attempted to backtrack, telling Judge Ellis that the evidence presented will determine if Mr. Gates‘ testifies.

That drew a sharp rebuke from Judge Ellis.

“You know who you are going to call,” He said. “If you are [not] going to call him then this is a waste of time.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08...ort-trial/


Bwahahahaha.

Question for my legal friends. Are federal prosecutors like every other version of federal employee? Too dumb and incompetent to make it in the real world?

(08-01-2018 04:21 PM)shere khan Wrote:  In a shocking admission Wednesday morning, federal prosecutors said Rick Gates may not testify in the trial of his former business partner Paul Manafort.

“He may testify, he may not,” Mr. Asonye told Judge T.S. Ellis III.

That's a vague statement that may or may not signify something important. But if Gates really does not take the stand -- holy sh*t, that seems like a huge chunk of the prosecution's case.

Quote:Question for my legal friends. Are federal prosecutors like every other version of federal employee? Too dumb and incompetent to make it in the real world?

I've known some like that, but majority -- no.

(08-01-2018 04:21 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Are federal prosecutors like every other version of federal employee? Too dumb and incompetent to make it in the real world?

In my experience (of being on exactly one jury) I was floored at how poor the state attorney was in comparison to the private attorney of the defendant.

On the other hand, I could tell that the state judge himself will be a rock-star. That guy was sharp as as whip and had the presence of of a three-star general. Very impressed.

(08-01-2018 02:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Everybody should we weary of drawing too much of an inference from this case in regards to Trump.

Weary or wary?

Perhaps both?!?

(08-01-2018 04:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 04:21 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Are federal prosecutors like every other version of federal employee? Too dumb and incompetent to make it in the real world?

In my experience (of being on exactly one jury) I was floored at how poor the state attorney was in comparison to the private attorney of the defendant.

On the other hand, I could tell that the state judge himself will be a rock-star. That guy was sharp as as whip and had the presence of of a three-star general. Very impressed.

Caution. Dirty words.

https://youtu.be/pJGthEmPO9E

(08-01-2018 04:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  In my experience (of being on exactly one jury) I was floored at how poor the state attorney was in comparison to the private attorney of the defendant.

Can’t tell for sure, but it seems like that was a non-federal case. A local/county prosecutor is much more likely to have been hired because they (or a relative) made a timely political donation. Not saying that never happens at federal level, but much less likely IMHO.

(08-01-2018 03:10 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:01 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 08:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 04:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why was Mueller hired? Something about Russian collusion.

If you don't understand how special counsels work, I can't help you. You need to educate yourself. Or at least if you want to sound half-way intelligent anyway. And the authorization for the Special Counsel has been posted here many times. If you haven't read it by now, you should probably stop posting about it.

So you can't answer the question, lol.

I already have...countless times. And no, your ignorance here is not funny.

One more time for you:
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

Manafort isn't on trial for anything related to that. Shameful behavior by our government.

A G A I N, you DON'T understand how specials counsels work. And it's clearly spelled right out for you in the link I posted. Since you clearly don't understand it, here it is in for you.

Quote:(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
- (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
- (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
- © If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

I can only provide you with the information...I can't make you understand it.

(08-03-2018 08:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:10 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:01 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 08:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you don't understand how special counsels work, I can't help you. You need to educate yourself. Or at least if you want to sound half-way intelligent anyway. And the authorization for the Special Counsel has been posted here many times. If you haven't read it by now, you should probably stop posting about it.

So you can't answer the question, lol.

I already have...countless times. And no, your ignorance here is not funny.

One more time for you:
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

Manafort isn't on trial for anything related to that. Shameful behavior by our government.

A G A I N, you DON'T understand how specials counsels work. And it's clearly spelled right out for you in the link I posted. Since you clearly don't understand it, here it is in for you.

Quote:(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
- (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
- (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
- © If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

I can only provide you with the information...I can't make you understand it.

Sounds like you are starting to get the fact that there was no russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

Not another great day in court for team tain yesterday. Judge basically warned them that they have no case unless the star witness testifies. Can someone explain to me why team taint doesnt want Manaforts business partner and their star witness to testify? This is almost like indicting a ham sammich and then getting butthurt because they dont want to proceed in court.

(08-03-2018 08:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Not another great day in court for team tain yesterday. Judge basically warned them that they have no case unless the star witness testifies. Can someone explain to me why team taint doesnt want Manaforts business partner and their star witness to testify? This is almost like indicting a ham sammich and then getting butthurt because they dont want to proceed in court.

Must know, have evidence of something that makes the feds look real bad.

(08-03-2018 08:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 08:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:10 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:01 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  So you can't answer the question, lol.

I already have...countless times. And no, your ignorance here is not funny.

One more time for you:
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

Manafort isn't on trial for anything related to that. Shameful behavior by our government.

A G A I N, you DON'T understand how specials counsels work. And it's clearly spelled right out for you in the link I posted. Since you clearly don't understand it, here it is in for you.

Quote:(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
- (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
- (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
- © If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

I can only provide you with the information...I can't make you understand it.

Sounds like you are starting to get the fact that there was no russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

Sounds like you're deflecting from this thread because you know I just handed SFBC's ass to him.

Move on everyone. Discuss the topic not the posters