This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

First on CNN: First charges filed in Mueller investigation

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]


Washington (CNN) "A federal grand jury in Washington on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.

The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are.
A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined to comment..."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/first-charges-mueller-investigation/index.html

View user profile
If you squint just right, I bet you can see the steam coming out of Trump's ears.

View user profile
A grand jury anywhere in America except St. Louis can indict a ham sandwich by direction of prosecutors.....getting a conviction is entirely another matter.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:A grand jury anywhere in America except St. Louis can indict a ham sandwich by direction of prosecutors.....getting a conviction is entirely another matter.

If the prosecutors in St. Louis hadn't been witting tools of the venal and corrupt cops, they would have gotten an indictment there, as well.

Prosecutors and cops are joined at the hip--even when they get an indictment, they take a dive in court. In St. Louis, they just saved themselves the trouble of a trial.

In every case in recent memory, the "prosecutors" failed to convict cops of crimes against humanity.

Funny how they never fail to convict some pitiful wretch of murder even when he's innocent.
Here's 351 examples: https://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/#exonerated-by-dna

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
Washington (CNN) "A federal grand jury in Washington on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.

The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are.
A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined to comment..."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/first-charges-mueller-investigation/index.html

View user profile

This gives me hope because I don't believe Mueller would move on an indictment until he reached a certain stage in the investigation.

View user profile

View user profile
Newsweek says it may be Manafort or Flynn, but Manafort is the most likely target of the indictment. Now, what happens when Trump immediately pardons him? Do we get obstruction of justice against the POTUS? I've become convinced that the House will never impeach this guy, no matter what he does. Would that be a tipping point>?
Threatening prosecution of a defendant who knows he will be pardoned is a useless effort.
That's what pisses me off the most about this situation. These bastards seem to not be afraid one little bit. They have their ace in the hole and they know it.

View user profile
bigdog wrote:That's what pisses me off the most about this situation. These bastards seem to not be afraid one little bit. They have their ace in the hole and they know it.

I'm afraid you're right, bigdog -- and it thoroughly sucks.

Seems to me the one and only thing the citizens of this country can do in the way of protest is to show up in droves in November and vote down every single available Republican candidate.

But I don't even believe that will happen.

All in all, depressing as hell.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:
bigdog wrote:That's what pisses me off the most about this situation. These bastards seem to not be afraid one little bit. They have their ace in the hole and they know it.

I'm afraid you're right, bigdog -- and it thoroughly sucks.

Seems to me the one and only thing the citizens of this country can do in the way of protest is to show up in droves in November and vote down every single available Republican candidate.

But I don't even believe that will happen.  

All in all, depressing as hell.

I don't know what ya'll can be thinking. Trump is the best thing to happen to Progressives in decades. The Republicans have both Houses AND the Presidency and they can't get anything done! They are in complete disarray.

Impeaching Trump would be a real mistake because then we'd end up with a theocratic extremist who knows how politics works in the White House.

The Democrats are likely to take at least one House next November which would completely neuter the Presidency. Leave him in place and enjoy the Republican misery.

Even if he stays in office the full four years, it will amount to less than 1% of our National existence. Trump is nothing more than an insignificant blip in the history of our Nation.

Besides, he's great for the comedy writers of America, he's reached Nixon-level status in mere months. Relax, enjoy the ride and have some faith in our institutions.

View user profile
I doubt very seriously that the Dems will take either house of Congress in 2018. In fact, unless the SC rules against the gerrymandering of house districts that has already taken place, I don't see any way they can ever take back the house of Representatives.  There are too many Dems defending their Senate seats this year to pick up much, although I suppose it could happen. Oddsmakers don't think it will.
I don't even care about Mike Pence and the fact that he'd try to turn this country into a theocracy, I just plain don't want Donald Trump to get by with the things he has gotten by with so far. I want him and his people so angry that they form their own little party and destroy the Republicans for a century to come. That's the only positive I can possibly see coming out of this.
And I think that's why he will never be impeached by the Republicans.
Oh, and Nixon was the world's greatest statesman compared to Trump. He was a racist, but we didn't know that until the secret tapes came out, because he had sense enough not to make it public. I suspect there might have been a good 50 IQ points separating Nixon from Trump.
I confess to still having a soft spot in my heart for the old crook- he was the first person I ever worked on a campaign for. And he did some very good things when he was in office.

View user profile
The White House is in full panic mode.

This is the beginning of the end of our national nightmare, but the scum will not go quietly.

Invest now in popcorn futures.

View user profile
bigdog wrote:
I confess to still having a soft spot in my heart for the old crook- he was the first person I ever worked on a campaign for.   And he did some very good things when he was in office.

You're the second guy on this forum who was a conservative when he was younger--Seaoat was also a Republican. What changed you? Why did your point of view change?

View user profile
This Twitter thread does a good job spelling some things out.

Seth Abramson‏Verified account @SethAbramson

(THREAD) This is an *itemized list* of every lie Sarah Huckabee Sanders told America on behalf of the President in her press briefing today.


1/ Trump has no intention or plan to fire Mueller. FALSE. Trump told the NYT that if Mueller crosses a certain "red line" he could be fired.


2/ The charges and plea announced today had "nothing to do with the President's campaign or campaign activity." FALSE. And here's why:


3/ Manafort lied to the FBI *while Trump's Campaign Manager* and used his illegally gotten, Putin-linked funds to work for Trump "for free."


4/ So Trump was the direct beneficiary—to the tune of saving *many millions* in consulting fees—of the fact Manafort got money from Russia.


5/ All Papadopoulos' lies—which he's plead to—involved high-ranking Trump officials, Trump campaign activity, and protecting Trump himself.


6/ "There's clear evidence" Clinton colluded with Russian intelligence. FALSE. This is false on almost too many grounds to mention. A start:


7/ Clinton's camp *continued* payments started by *Republicans* to a firm that contracted with *another* firm whose sources were *non-FSB*.

8/ The dossier "influenced" the election. FALSE. Barring 1 article, the dossier wasn't reported on in any significant way until January '17.


9/ The dossier "smears" the President. FALSE. Every piece of information in the dossier that can be confirmed so far *has* been confirmed.


10/ Clinton's camp didn't know what research they would receive and had nothing to do with its collection. And—the FBI believes the dossier.


11/ There's been no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. FALSE. Not only is the Papadopoulos plea a smoking gun—Sessions' perjuries were too.


12/ Indeed—both the ongoing secret sanctions negotiations between Trump and Russia and the GOP platform change were the result of collusion.


13/ Papadopoulos is in trouble only for not telling the truth. FALSE. The WH implies the underlying activities were all okay. They were not.


14/ Papadopoulos plead to Making False Statements so that he *wouldn't* have to plead to greater charges and *could* cooperate with the FBI.


15/ There's no "official capacity" in which the campaign was involved with Papadopoulos' acts. FALSE—his actions were *campaign-sanctioned*.


16/ The Manafort/Gates indictments deal with crimes in a time "well before" the Trump campaign existed. FALSE. Both were ongoing in 2015.


17/ Papadopoulos had a "limited" campaign role. FALSE. He was a top adviser and a primary liaison to other nations on Trump's Russia policy.


18/ Papadopoulos went overseas for Trump and was one of the *only* NatSec team members kept on when the team disbanded in late July of 2016.


19/ Papadopoulos was giving interviews on Trump's Russia policy to Russian media as late—possibly later—than *late September of 2016*.


20/ All told, George Papadopoulos worked for Trump for *at least* seven months of the eleven-month campaign primary/general "voting" season.


21/ (Brief delay to do a media interview—will return to this thread shortly. Please share the *first tweet* in this thread in the meantime.)


22/ Papadopoulos' outreach on the Kremlin's behalf was "repeatedly denied." FALSE. At all turns he was openly, clearly encouraged by emails.


23/ Papadopoulos had no role in extra-campaign outreach. FALSE—he went to Israel for Trump, talked to Russian media for Trump and much else.


24/ And of course we know from his sworn plea docs that "high-ranking campaign officials" authorized him to speak to (other) Kremlin agents.


25/ "We expect Mueller to conclude his work soon." FALSE. Recent articles confirm Trump and his lawyers are battening down for a long haul.


26/ Sanders says Trump's last Manafort contact was in February. TRUE/FALSE? In this case it doesn't matter—because it's damning. Here's why:


27/ We were told Manafort called Priebus just before the inauguration—to urge Trump to release dirt on HRC—because he couldn't access Trump.


28/ The campaign wanted to distance Trump from Manafort *and the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting* by saying Manafort *could not access* Trump.


29/ Today Sanders inadvertently revealed that Manafort was still able to talk to Trump—and we know his subject was "HRC dirt"—in *February*.


30/ Sanders now says that Donald Trump can't recall *anything* about his March 31st, 2016 meeting at Trump International Hotel in DC. FALSE.



31/ Trump is always lauding his perfect memory and appears to have excellent recall for (for instance) any person who has ever slighted him.


32/ Moreover, others at the TIHDC meeting have excellent recall: they told The Daily Caller Trump was "flattered" by Papadopoulos' proposal.


33/ Sanders says she's had "no conversations" with Trump on pardons. FALSE. We know Trump has discussed the pardon power with his top aides.


34/ Sanders: it's "not clear how Sessions could be said to be involved" in the Papadopoulos case. FALSE—Sessions was the kid's *supervisor*.


35/ Moreover, Sessions received at least some—maybe all—of Papadopoulos' March (and April, and May) emails. And he *heard him at the TIHDC*.


36/ Sanders says she's not sure when Trump first heard of the stolen emails. Possibly TRUE, but Papadopoulos implies it was in *April 2016*.


37/ Sanders: the indictments/plea "don't have anything to do with us." FALSE. See preceding tweets—this is, simply put, an *outrageous* lie.



38/ Papadopoulos "volunteered" for Trump's NatSec Advisory Committee. FALSE. He was recruited by Sam Clovis; he didn't come out of nowhere.


39/ This push to make Papadopoulos—an unqualified kid in touch with Trump's pal Millian—sound like a mere intern is absolutely *outrageous*.


40/ Papadopoulos was *chosen* by Trump's team, then *featured* by Trump in print/pictures, then *promoted* by Trump to a larger Russia role.


41/ Trump's NatSec Committee "met only once"? FALSE. They were in constant contact via email threads—so this is a *deeply* misleading claim.


42/ "He [Papadopoulos] wasn't responded to in any way when he reached out"—FALSE—for *months* he was responded to *throughout* the campaign.


43/ Sanders says the dossier is "fake information" and the Clinton campaign knew that. FALSE. The dossier is substantially verified *and*...


44/ ...everyone who's looked at the dossier, including Steele, Fusion GPS, FBI, and others in law enforcement have *believed it to be true*.


45/ So the idea the Clinton campaign was in a position to know "false" a dossier that (a) is *true* and (b) the FBI believed true, is crazy.


46/ Trump was "without a lot of reaction" when he learned of Mueller's indictments. FALSE. And—uh—I'm just going to post this picture here:




47/ BREAKING NEWS—thread interruption—Manafort's bail has been set at $10 million. Remember, he may have to make a showing to court to post.


48/ BREAKING NEWS (cont)—In financial crime cases, the court must know the bail money isn't a fruit of the crime. Mueller *loves* this bail.


49/ BREAKING NEWS (cont. 2)—As I noted earlier today, any bail that *keeps Manafort behind bars* ups the pressure on him to cooperate *now*.



50/ SHS says when Trump hired Papadopoulos, the latter was a "seasoned operative." FALSE. All accounts say he lacked meaningful credentials.


51/ "We have indications" the probe will wrap up soon, Sanders says. FALSE. They're relying on Christie, it seems, who has/cites no sources.


52/ Trump called Papadopoulos an "excellent guy" in a pro forma way. FALSE. He said his team was the best, and "sold" Papadopoulos as such.


53/ The other possibility is that he was lying about knowing who Papadopoulos was—which he was claiming to—but that's *not* the WH line now.


54/ Apologies to all—another break for an interview, and then I'll finish up this thread. Anyone been counting up the Huckabee Sanders lies?


55/ Sanders says she's "not aware" of Trump aides speaking with Papadopoulos about Kremlin meetings. FALSE—she read Papadopoulos' affidavit.


56/ As a WH Press Secretary publicly pledged to telling media the truth, she isn't entitled to *pretend* she hasn't read Papadopoulos' plea.



View user profile
All I can say as my wife and I were in a hotel in the quad cities this morning and as I do not even take MSNBC or Fox on cable anymore we listened to morning Joe. The name Popadolos made my wife and I laugh about the Chevy Chase movie where his son gets a fake ID and wins all this money and cars and everybody was giving this stupid kid all kinds of respect because of his winning money. I should have known that he had a future in the Trump Administration when he grew up.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:All I can say as my wife and I were in a hotel in the quad cities this morning and as I do not even take MSNBC or Fox on cable anymore we listened to morning Joe.   The name Popadolos made my wife and I laugh about the Chevy Chase movie where his son gets a fake ID and wins all this money and cars and everybody was giving this stupid kid all kinds of respect because of his winning money.  I should have known that he had a future in the Trump Administration when he grew up.

Uh...    that was a comedy, this movie's a thriller.

View user profile
All of that from comrades that can see no wrong doing from gun running to Mexican cartels, wiretapping reporters, assassinating a juvenile US citizen, irs targeting, overthrowing the sovereign nation of Libya, then the incompetence to leave Americans essentially unprotected, then lie about it right before an election, bombing more muslim nations than bush2, the Hillary email obfuscation and obstruction... etc.

It's rich alright.

View user profile

Sweet dreams, all:

View user profile

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
Sweet dreams, all:


That was absolutely delightful.

View user profile
Here ya go.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/opinion/mueller-manafort-indictment.html?smid=tw-share

At almost the exact same time, news broke suggesting that the F.B.I. has evidence of collusion. We learned that one of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy aides, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his attempts to solicit compromising information on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. Despite Trump’s hysterical denials and attempts at diversion, the question is no longer whether there was cooperation between Trump’s campaign and Russia, but how extensive it was.

In truth, that’s been clear for a while. If it’s sometimes hard to grasp the Trump campaign’s conspiracy against our democracy, it’s due less to lack of proof than to the impudent improbability of its B-movie plotline. Monday’s indictments offer evidence of things that Washington already knows but pretends to forget. Trump, more gangster than entrepreneur, has long surrounded himself with bottom-feeding scum, and for all his nationalist bluster, his campaign was a vehicle for Russian subversion.

We already knew that Manafort offered private briefings about the campaign to Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The indictment accuses him of having been an unregistered foreign agent for another Putin-aligned oligarch, the former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. Trump wasn’t paying Manafort, who reportedly sold himself to the candidate by offering to work free. But he intended to profit from his connection with the campaign, emailing an associate, “How do we use to get whole?” If there were no other evidence against Trump, we could conclude that he was grotesquely irresponsible in opening his campaign up to corrupt foreign infiltration.

But of course there is other evidence against Trump. His campaign was told that Russia wanted to help it, and it welcomed such help. On June 3, remember, the music publicist Rob Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr. to broker a Trump Tower meeting at which a Russian source would deliver “very high level and sensitive information” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. responded with delight: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”



So here’s where we are. Trump put Manafort, an accused money-launderer and unregistered foreign agent, in charge of his campaign. Under Manafort’s watch, the campaign made at least two attempts to get compromising information about Clinton from Russia. Russia, in turn, provided hacked Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.

Russia also ran a giant disinformation campaign against Clinton on social media and attempted to hack voting systems in at least 21 states. In response to Russia’s election meddling, Barack Obama’s administration imposed sanctions. Upon taking office, Trump reportedly made secret efforts to lift them. He fired the F.B.I. director James Comey to stop his investigation into “this Russia thing,” as he told Lester Holt. The day after the firing, he met with Russia’s foreign minister and its ambassador to America, and told them: “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

We’ve had a year of recriminations over the Clinton campaign’s failings, but Trump clawed out his minority victory only with the aid of a foreign intelligence service. On Monday we finally got indictments, but it’s been obvious for a year that this presidency is a crime.

The presidency is a crime, but it's also a huge indicator of a much bigger problem -- that we have a large chunk of the population that's too brainwashed, gullible, and idiotic to take part in the Democratic process. What can be done about this, I don't know -- you can't take the vote away from 'em or we no longer have a Democracy, so, that's no good. And I have little hope of them wising up in any significant number because they're a cult at this point. You all know what it's like trying to argue with one of these idiots; you try to get them to address America being sold out to a foreign power and all they wanna do is deflect to "Benghazi!" or bullshit that's been debunked years ago, and no amount of reasoning with them will stop their mania (how many times do we still have to explain to the same imbecile about Fast & Furious?). Prying these people off their delusion is like getting someone out of Scientology -- damn near impossible, especially since the entire time you're trying the cult is aggressively trying to keep them on board and deluded, telling them you're the enemy for trying to set them straight. Have you watched Hannity lately? It's crazytime... and yet people are actually buying that shit, because they're so desperate to fend off the truth. They don't care what's happening in America as long as they don't have to be on "the wrong team." They'll defend every bad idea to the death just to avoid facing the fact that they've been a stupid dupe.

So, that's the bigger problem. There's a snowballing effect. Remember when we thought they couldn't find anybody dumber than Dubya... and they said "hold my beer" and pulled Sarah Palin out of their hat? And we said, "Okay, now that's the dumbest and craziest that even they are willing to go, and... well, they sure showed us fuckers, didn't they? What's next, Louie Gohmert running for president? Steve Bannon? Richard Spencer? Some kind of Ted Nugent/Kid Rock ticket?

Trump will be dealt with, but these believing-crazy-shit morons will just elect another incompetent bigoted idiot con-man to replace him, especially now that they've found out they can do it and are determined to have it. I'm afraid Trump is more precedent than President.


View user profile
zsomething wrote:...and they said "hold my beer" and pulled Sarah Palin out of their hat?  

Their hat? Are you sure about that?

I think not.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
zsomething wrote:...and they said "hold my beer" and pulled Sarah Palin out of their hat?  

Their hat? Are you sure about that?

I think not.




Perhaps ass hat is more precise. The place they pull all of their candidates out of.

View user profile
Deus, you wanted to know why I changed from Republican to Democrat? I'd have to say, like so many people have, that the party left me. But it took place at a time that I was ready to change anyway. First of all, when I was young, I was a proud flag waver who thought this country could whip anybody else and should spread our values all over the world. I was very much in favor of Vietnam at the start, so was most of my family. I have a brother who served 2 tours over there. It took awhile of seeing American bodies on stretchers on my TV every afternoon to make me start to wonder why the hell we were over there.I was glad when Nixon got us out, but rather shocked when Watergate came along. I had really admired Nixon-still do for some of the things he accomplished but, of course, he was a crook. And then in the late 70's the most Amazing thing of my life happened  (well, one of the 3 most amazing), I had a son.  He came along about the time that a lot of truly great anti-War movies came out like the Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now, and it began to really eat at me that the guys on that wall in DC died for a lost cause, just for no reason at all that I could figure out. Then I heard a song called A Name on the Wall and I cannot listen to it to this day without thinking How I would feel if my son had died in a war like that. I'm not against all wars, we have to fight some of them, but we haven't had to fight a one since WW11 and also, we haven't really won a single one since WWII. And lets face it, in today's world, it's the Republicans who are the saber rattlers, not the democrats. None of my kids went in the military and I have absolutely no shame about that at all. I've had relatives who did serve in Iraq who came back with PTSD and a lot of confusion in their lives. And exactly what that war accomplished, I don't know either.
I still had a hard time with some of the issues of the Democratic party though, but when George HW pushed his plan to seize private property before anyone is convicted of a crime, making thieves of the police, that was pretty much the last straw. Then he went into Iraq the first time and I was against that one too. So, I registered as an Indy.
And along comes Bill Clinton. I believed in welfare reform because I know there is abuse in that system. I saw it way back in the early 70's when I worked for Family Services. Clinton was a Democrat but was willing to make some changes. We had 8 years of peace for the first time in years and years under Clinton, and yes, he signed a couple of things I did not like, but for the most part, he was on the side of middle class Americans.And beyond that, I liked him and I still do. In all honesty, I still cannot get my brain wrapped around the idea that transgender individuals should be going into the public bathroom of their choice, I'm a 68 year old woman and I don't want anyone with an appendage like that coming into the bathroom with me. I don't care what kind of clothes he's wearing or what he calls himself. I have rights too , and the Clintons have always been more moderate on those issues than some democrats. I did not like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but it was a vast improvement over what was there before. And to this day, I don't believe our taxes should pay for military people's surgery to change their sex. So I'm still not as liberal as some Dems, but once I caught on to the fact that the Clintons were centrists and they could still be Dems, I realized I could too. I registered Democrat . Eisenhower would be a Democrat today, Nixon definitely would, but I doubt Reagan or anyone since him would be. I think there are a LOT of Republicans that have switched over the last 40 years.
Anyway, I'm wondering if Donald Trump is arrested and they handcuff his hands behind his back (like in the picture above) he'll be able to escape? After all, he can feed those teenie-tiny little hands through anything, including handcuffs.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum