08-21-2018, 08:54 PM
in a legal sense Meuller is picking fruit from the poison tree but only "certain" fruit.
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
|
THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY
|
08-22-2018, 01:28 AM
(08-21-2018, 08:53 PM)Fry Guy Wrote: Mannafort is a scumbag and always was but no worse than many others in Washington who are not being investigated. He is only because he assisted Trump in becoming President Manafort may well have been investigated even if he'd never worked for Trump. He was accused of ripping off large sums of money from an oligarch who filed suit against him, which peaked the Feds interest. The shit was hitting the fan for Manafort. That's why he was ousted from the campaign. But, yeah, his activities as Trump's Campaign Manager did put him in the crosshairs of Mueller's investigators, and justifiably so. We know that Manafort participated in the Trump Tower meeting where a Russian attorney met with Trump Jr. and other top campaign officials to offer dirt on Hillary Clinton. We also know that shortly after Manafort joined the Trump campaign, the RNC charter reflected a complete about-face in regards to Russia-backed activities in Ukraine and related sanctions. So, it's only logical that Mueller's investigation into Russian interference would end up bumping into Manafort and his associates. And, Manafort wasn't exactly discreet in his lavish spending, even though his declared income couldn't support such a lifestyle. Manfort drew a target on his own chest with his financial crimes and tax evasion. He may have found himself under investigation because of his associations with Russia and the Trump campaign, but had he not been a criminal, he'd not have had a problem. He's not going to jail because he worked on the Trump campaign. He's going to jail because he's a criminal. Also, there are plenty of DC swampsters under investigation at any given time, from both sides of the aisle. Some of them do in fact get charged and prosecuted, and sometimes they're convicted. I can't recall any recent such cases of political financial fraud on the same scale as Manafort's though. We've covered plenty of DC swamp / crime investigations and cases here at Mock: http://mockforums.net/thread-3990.html?h...dirty+pols http://mockforums.net/showthread.php?tid=9660&page=2 http://mockforums.net/thread-10632.html http://mockforums.net/thread-12625.html http://mockforums.net/thread-12911.html 
08-22-2018, 04:55 AM
Well in that case I should ask you to look at the Clinton Foundation pay to play racket.
There was certainly a backflip in respective to Obamas harsh words and no action towards Russia and Trump's kind words after harsh repercussions with Russia. I mean Obama sent socks and well wishes to Ukraine when Mad Vlad annexed Crimea. Trump sent arms to the Ukrainians. Obama told Vlad to cut it out when Russia interfered in the 2016 election when he was President. Trump expelled diplomats and extended sanctions against Russia. So I do see a backflip too. So the lawyer that happened to be Russia that met up with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS (who were integral to the process of both the FISA orders and Mueller appointment) before and.after that meeting in which the lawyer who was Russian discussed Russian adoptions....is somehow something to do with what? NOTHING to do with anything Mueller is investigating. So I am not seeing what you are seeing. Trump during the campaign compartmentalised what he was trying to achieve every step of the way Mannafort was bought in for a specific purpose at a specific time and for a few months then ditched him. He cycled through a lot of people. Why would anyone believe this impacts on Trump? What part of any of these charges has to do with the alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign to win the election? Is or was that charge/narrative ever a crime? If it is then what if the DNC paid a firm to employ a Foreign agent to collude with Russian agents to make a Propaganda Dossier on a political opponent? Would THAT meet that.same standard? If not, why not? Why is Mueller not looking at that?
08-22-2018, 05:24 AM
08-22-2018, 05:37 AM
trump's campaign chairman: guilty
trump's personal attorney: guilty trump's deputy campaign manager: guilty trump's National Security Advisor: guilty trump's Foreign Policy Advisor: guilty Jared & Jr, you're next 
![[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Zy3rKpW.png)
08-22-2018, 05:59 AM
But guilty of what?
One of the reasons I am not a fan of this blatant partisanship is that if it is good for the goose is good for the gander. I hope there is not a peep from the Democrats and Progressives when the Trump admin stacks the Supreme court and lower courts with his nominees and IF he wins the midterms goes after HIS enemies with equal relish.
08-22-2018, 08:41 AM
(08-22-2018, 05:37 AM)Duchess Wrote: trump's campaign chairman: guilty James Baker – FIRED (MSM falsely reported that he resigned) Lisa Page – FIRED (MSM falsely reported that she resigned) Mike Kortan, FBI assistant director for public affairs – FIRED Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey – FIRED David Laufman, chief of the Justice Dept.’s counterintelligence – FIRED John Carlin, assistant attorney general (DOJ) – FIRED Sally Yates, deputy attorney general – FIRED Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (DOJ head) – FIRED Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG (acting DOJ head) – REMOVED (but cooperating) Rachel Brand, associate attorney general (#3 behind AG Rosenstein) – FIRED 
08-22-2018, 06:59 PM
Manafort was not under the eye of the justice department when he was working with Podesta it wasn't until he had ties with Trump that he became scrutinized.
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
08-22-2018, 08:08 PM
Manafort was ripping off the tax payers of this country, at the very least, for his own personal gain for decades. He was guilty as charged in that regard. I'm glad LE did its job and he's finally being held accountable.
And, you don't know when he was initially scrutinized. It was an oligarch who filed suit against him for financial crimes first. We covered it here when the Ukranian-supplied ledgers were published-by the New York times back in 2016. You and FryGuy sure do insist that you know a lot of things you couldn't possibly know. You seem hell-bent on supporting certain people and narratives regardless of the known contradictory facts, regardless of the large number of lies and changing stories coming from Trump and Rudy, and regardless of the mental contortions it requires to seriously consider many of your arguments and deflections. Even so, I still hope your general premise is right and Trump is just the worst President ever at hiring people, and the most ignorant President ever when it comes to knowing what his subordinates were up to right under his nose. That level of incompetence would be preferable to our President knowingly and actively directing a corrupt operation at the expense of the American people for the benefit of himself, his family, and/or foreign adversaries.
08-23-2018, 12:09 AM
Well I don't think that is true either. He has less staff and a much smaller budget. I dont think he necessarily made bad hiring decisions as such. Who was better Lewindowski or Manafort? That is the wrong way to look at it because how Trump was viewing roles and strategies was more fluid. People were there for specific roles and functions and when the strategy changed or the next phase of the election campaign upon him. He disposed of that person and replaced them with someone that could better meet new expected challenges.
It doesn't mean the other people were bas but just not required for the next phase. Doesn't mean he is tied to the hip with them nor that adter they have done what they were bought on to do, that they would be kept around. The fact too that they have experience or can discharge their duties well does not suddenly endorse them as bastions of morality or make them close friends or "good people" I am wondering why.you try to conflate the two and for what purpose?
08-23-2018, 01:27 AM
I'm not conflating anything FryGuy.
Trump has made many terrible hiring decisions. He has hired/appointed people for key positions who were far from the most qualified available and were eyebrow-raising choices to many objective observers from the get-go. Paul Manafort was qualified to help lobby delegates ahead of the Republican Convention, no doubt about that. Trump should have thanked him and ended it there. Manafort was under a lot of scrutiny when he volunteered to help with the convention and before he was promoted to head the campaign. He was under investigation for shady Ukraine/Russia dealings starting in at least 2014. I wasn't surprised that he was forced out when the shit hit the fan, and I'm not surprised that he's in so much deep shit now. Putting him in charge of the campaign was a bad move. The writing was on the wall way back then and Trump may pay more for it again later. Michael Flynn was a terrible appointment as National Security Adviser for so many obvious reasons. It was no surprise that he lasted less than 25 days (because of his secret dealings with Russia regarding sanctions and his attempted cover-up). George Papadapolous wasn't someone I'd ever heard of before his guilty plea. He was another terrible hire -- making drunken statements to Australian intelligence about getting Russian help with the Trump campaign pushed the Russia interference investigation into full gear. Silly amateur.
08-23-2018, 01:28 AM
Unrelated to Russia and equally bad hiring decisions by Trump:
Omarosa. Really? Very bad hiring decision. Scott Pruitt. As corrupt a grifter as they come. Anthony Scaramucci. Booted as Communications Directors within days for making a public statement about how another questionable hire, Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, sucked his own dick. There are more. Most of them were hired/appointed because Trump believed they were loyal to him, according to Trump himself. They were not hired because they were the most qualified candidates. And, all of them were let go because they predictably fucked-up royally. The number of firings and forced resignations is far higher than under any other presidency. Making the argument that the high turn-over is because even better than "the best people" came along and that Trump hasn't made terrible hiring decisions is not rational or objective.
08-23-2018, 01:51 AM
Laugh all you want Biggie. Just because you're typically not one doesn't mean they don't exist.
Included among the many objective observers were Trump-supporting Republican lawmakers and pundits who publicly expressed the same puzzlement over some of those hires as I did. I don't think observers who knew about those people before they were hired could have objectively considered them the best for the country (or even the administration). Considering how they worked out and what's going down now, that was an accurate assessment.
08-23-2018, 04:49 AM
(08-23-2018, 01:51 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Just because you're typically not one doesn't mean they don't exist. 
08-23-2018, 08:27 AM
I was just wondering who grabs more pus....ummm headlines Trump or the Kardashions.
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
08-23-2018, 09:36 AM
(08-23-2018, 01:27 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I'm not conflating anything FryGuy. Weren't conflating anything? You DID say this: Quote:Even so, I still hope your general premise is right and Trump is just the worst President ever at hiring people, and the most ignorant President ever when it comes to knowing what his subordinates were up to right under his nose. So WAS I saying this? At all? Nope. There is plenty of things that Donald Trump does unconventionally and sure many people do not like it but this does not mean it is incompetent. His campaign is case in point. I mean think of those embarrassing pet names to Jed, Marco and Ted. Incompetent? Stupid? Poorly thought? What was the immediate effect? GREAT PLAN! Not liking something does not make it bad. Because he does things differently it is not necessarily worse nor is he doing it for the worst or most ill-thought out intentions. Personally I like the "image" of Obama and I think that image is really the benchmark of Presidential. Poise, grace, dignity, charisma and such. Perfect for a President. So therefore he was Presidential material. Right? No not really. He was not a great President and not terribly effective. What did he do? I mean Osama Bin Laden was killed under his reign. Obamacare...? First Black President? What else? If Trump gets through 8 years, he will do far more. However by the standards of Presidential that you would favourably measure Obama above and he falls short. BUT Presidents ought not be ineffective cardboard cutouts and if you remove that completely then you need an effective President. Obama was not that and I believe Trump is. So in short I do not believe Trump incompetent nor perfect and I do not give a damn as to him being conventional a President or not behaving in traditionally Presidential way, I do not give a crap. As to Paul Manafort - Trump got rid of Lewindowski that did a fantastic job. However the skills that Lewindowski had used so well that helped Trump win through the Primaries was not the same skills Trump believed he needed towards the end phase. He needed some other skills that he believed Manafort had. It was no endorsement on Manaforts personality or moral fibre. Trump wanted to win and he had a guy that had that kind of experience that he could draw on. Was it a good decision? Did Trump win? Would Trump have won if he only stuck with Lewindowski? Michael Flynn - Great choice. Yes he did talk to Russians and other diplomats and so he should have. As to Flynn pleading guilty to lying, okay but did he lie? Department of Justice did not think he lied but went after him for lying and then charged him with it and he pleaded guilty? Why? What kind of pressure did they put on him and how much was it costing him to contest? Fantastic choice and a patriot. A shame this worked out badly for him and his family. Also probably was not a good idea to have lied to Sessions. If he did in fact lie. George Pappadopolous - What does he have to do with Trump? Not a lot. How much was the campaign paying this gentleman. Answer - "Nothing". He was a volunteer. How many meetings or projects did he sit in on? Answer - One. He was a volunteer and was not a "Trump hire" he was a young bloke suggested by Preibus I think and volunteered for a project and did not have much influence and impact. He made some suggestions to the Trump campaign that was rebuffed and seems hardly even a bit player. (08-23-2018, 01:28 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Unrelated to Russia and equally bad hiring decisions by Trump: Omarosa - On the face of it, not a bad decision. She was a successful black woman who he knew of and who was keen to work hard and get in front of the press and outreach. She also had worked with Clinton and came over to Trump. Lynne Patton worked behind the scenes and Katrina Pierson was brilliant and front and centre with the media BUT how many other black women were prepared to represent and do outreach? Besides that she was little risk to Trump. If things did not work out she was persona non grata with the Left so? So NO, this is not a bad decision. It was a good decision. Do ALL decisions work out? He did lose out but not a lot. By the time the ink dries she will be as relevant as Jessica Leeds. Scott Pruitt - Seems a bit of a dickhead. Does not mind using the benefits of office to make fraudulent personal expenses. Right? I mean how can that be a "good" person? Depends what you mean by "good". Clearly doing scummy things or being sly and slimy is NOT good. At least in the sense of moral. BUT do you mean good as in a good person or an effective person in your role? The answer is not "yes" and you cannot use this interchangeably. From reports, he was good at his role. He was good at running it. Was he ALSO scummy and overstepping the mark in his efforts to be fraudulent and such. So was he a success? Certainly not by conventional standards. But was he fulfilling Trump's agenda well and effectively and despite his other dumbarsery. Anthony Scaramucci - He needed a loyal toecutter and he got it with Scarmucci. Look who Scaramucci was bought in to get rid of and shake up. He did too. He went on the offensive at a time that Trump needed to appear on the front foot. He did that and got Trump over a tough time. He appeared to show some real potential. Then he fucked up and was let go. So was he a bad choice OR was he someone who fulfilled a role and had done what he needed to do? Clearly the latter. (08-23-2018, 01:51 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Laugh all you want Biggie. Just because you're typically not one doesn't mean they don't exist. You are not either Hair of the Dog and I think you must be aware of that. How many objective observers that Trump-supporting Republican lawmakers and pundits who publicly expressed the same puzzlement over some of those hires ALSO thought that he was crazy for running and would never win? Wasn't spending enough on his campaign? Was wrong to campaign on the wall? and we could go on and on and he bloody won so NO let's not base our opinions on that. As for what is going on.....yes let's agree the DNC and DOJ colluded and conspired to nullify the results of a fair election. They did this by both pursuing a phony Trump/Russian collusion narrative and through Fusion GPS hired a foreign agent to conspire with Russian agents of the Kremlin to doctor a dossier which supported the FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign and to pressure the appointment of a Special Counsel without an underlying crime (which incidentally is necessary for the appointment of one). It also allowed Hillary Clinton to dodge bullets over the Private Servers and scrubbing of emails and handing out immunity deals like candy. If you want to pretend that this was something other, go ahead BUT remember this, there is every chance that at the end of the day and despite all of this, it will run its course and will eventually finish. A couple of perjury convictions and a few non-Russia collusion charges. Then what happens? I will give you an idea of what "I" think. Look at the amount of old guard on both sides (establishment) on both sides of the political divide retiring this year. How many Trump appointees and Republicans in the Supreme court and how many Obama appointees are being let go in the lower court and being replaced by Trump appointees? What the heck do you think Sessions has been doing? How have all those investigations on Uranium One and The Clinton Foundation and such are doing? Why are they holding off on taking them to court? How many Security clearances will be pulled? How many senior FBI and DOJ officials have been booted? See you may look at this now and say "Ha, see Trump is so done for. This politcisation of the court processes and the Intel services is great when it is used against Trump." But what most do not realise is something called precedent. You reckon Trump will take this laying down? IF Trump is NOT impeached and ESPECIALLY if the Senate and House are not lost to the Republicans AND with loss of opposition in his side from people like McCain, Flake, Ryan and Corker he is going to rain Hell down on those he considers enemies. He will have the courts stacked, the majority and the precedent. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
![[Image: BigKeenHake-size_restricted.gif]](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BigKeenHake-size_restricted.gif)
![[Image: LbU3tZ4_jrNdw3jX?format=jpg&name=900x900]](https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1032073018615496704/pu/img/LbU3tZ4_jrNdw3jX?format=jpg&name=900x900)