Mueller Resorts to Extortion?

Even if that's true it still doesn't rise to the level of a crime. All political campaigns seek to find dirt on the opposition.

 

Criminal? I wasn't aware that Donald Trump was ever convicted of a crime, wouldn't that prevent him from being the POTUS? Naive? You folks toss that crap around like it's true with no facts just the same sad, desperate whine. Only other liberals believe it and that's a small minority.

 

So true and how scary is that? It's like the thuggery that goes on in the third world, what's next an assassination? If so what will America become? There's long been a trend in DC that both sides overlook the other's criminal activities in such matters. This has been going on since Watergate. Every now and then there's something they can't ignore but even then it's forgotten in the space of a news cycle.

 

And.....it appears any that don't agree with them are now considered the Alt Right.

 

Did you see Leibovich's essay in last week's NYT Magazine?

He's right, that "new media" has democratized the political conversation. But that does not mean that "new media" is in posession of, or concerned about truth or fact (Breitbart, Fox and InfoWars could care less, nor does their audience).

 

The federal rule 600 says that the special council should look for potential crimes and wrongdoing. It does not tell the office where it can or should look. Like any other criminal investigation, it goes where it goes. When local police start investigating an illegal gambling operation, they do not refrain from looking for money laundering or obstruction of justice charges because it wasn't listed on the preliminary paperwork they made out last Tuesday morning.

Sometimes police on the vice squad, or fraud unit will send some of their results and some of their investigation, to the organized crime division, or cyber-crime division across the hall, and they don't even ask a judge or notify the suspect. GASP!!!! , they don't consult with the mayor's office or ask for the city council to pass an ordinance to allow them to pass that file over. Nope, they just hand over that file and their tips and informants and their records for second pair of eyes, more staff hours and legwork and more potential charges, related or not!

Law enforcement is there to uncover crime and get criminals off the street. There are no 'Stop' signs or 'Do Not Enter' signs posted . We don't call local investigators gestapo for looking into financial records or past patterns of conduct. We call them thorough. And that is what the special council is supposed to be doing too. Stop the pearl clutching and whining.

 

Trump University that he paid a $25 million dollar fine, was a crime. Why would someone vote for a criminal like that?

Obstruction of Justice with criminal intent is a crime. Trump has no business being POTUS. He's just a common thug.

 

You sound is if you are setting the rules here. You aren't. The rules for Mueller in getting at the truth is to follow the money. Follow the money and everything else falls into place. That's how coordination is found.

By the way, it's no longer an allegation. Coordination as long been established. Thanks to Trump's dumb (*)(*)(*) son, he gave authorities all the fodder they need.

 

Your proof it isn't;https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20?

Get started proving it isn't a crime. It's once again time to start knocking these tire kickers off this thread. They have a bad habit of saying a whole bunch while saying absolutely nothing.

b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

 

100% correct.

Trump's cultists do not care if he is corrupt and treacherous so they will look for any reason to negate and diminish the gravity of what this gangster does.

 

Mueller isn't "following" anything. He's digging into Manaforts finances in hopes of finding anything he can use as leverage. It's unethical at the very least. If Trump jr has set himself up for prosecution, Mueller wouldn't be so desperate to coerce Manafort. I've heard too much smoking gun nonsense before. Flynn, who still hasn't been charged with so much as an ethics violation, has just launched a new consulting firm. Can't count the times I've been assured he'd be indicted, or become a prosecution witness.

 

Manafort is deeply involved with the Russians and it appears money laundering. If any of that has to do with Trump...well....

 

"Digging"?

That is how investigations are conducted.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the definition of "investigation" before commenting further on the subject.

Your statements appear foolish and naive.

Once again, do you even understand the concept (and definition) of "investigation"?

Nothing personal, just a simple inquiry.

Carry on.

 

Mueller isn't even making an attempt to conceal his intentions here. Manafort purchased property from Trump, that he later took loans against. None of which is illegal, nor does it "tie in" to Russian election interference. You're just comfotable with the "by any means necessary" mantra. Why not come right out with it? Mueller has.

 

No. Digging into completely unrelated financial dealings dating back to the previous decade, purely to gain leverage used to compel testimony, isn't normal procedure. You'll accept it as such because you believe it might achieve your desired outcome. Manafort, no matter how much pressure is applied, can't provide Mueller evidence of collusion where none existed. To applaud Muellers tactics is tantamount to sadism IMO.

 

If that isn't "following" , I may need to reference Webster again?

what's unethical about it?

How is Mueller desperate? He already has Jr. and the incriminating emails. No, I think Mueller and his money laundering past will probably help clear up a dirty past with the whole bunch.

You mean the actual law that was broken; https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20?

He got caught lying in office about his meetings, and never disclosed the illegal money. His time is coming.

 

Says who? You?

Manafort already has provided the evidence of collusion. He was at the meeting as a co-conspirator to the crime. The statute I presented you has already proven that.

 

You mean getting to the truth? I wouldn't either.

Maybe? But the meeting has him right to left.

We'll, seeing that that meeting has been exposed and the truth is out, I guess you have a point?

 

Mueller directing investigators to find anything in Manaforts past that could be used to coerce testimony is unethical. Especially if plea agreements or immunity deals arise. Both are hotly contested by defenses routinely. Again with the smoking guns, and improbabl predictions? Flynn is laughing at his critics. He's just opened a new consulting firm. But, sure, Mueller has him right where he wants him.

 

Quit trying to blame everything on everybody else....Trump brought this on himself, and you know it. Trump fired Comey....Trump lied about Russia being fake news...Trump lied about no Russia contacts...Kushner lied...Sessions lied...Manafort lied...Junior lied...Flinn lied...Spice lied...Kellyanna lied...Trump lied about Obama's birth certificate...Trump lied about Obama being Muslim...Trump lied about not sexually assaulting women...and then denying it....Trump lied about not collusion, when he asked the Russians to find Clinton's 30,000 emails in front of the whole country. Trump has lied about his taxes...and Mueller will show it...betcha.

 

That is HOW money laundering is done

 

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence rather than irrevocable proof that no crime has or has not happened.

I do not remember making a claim of "must". Please post a direct unedited quote where I allegedly claimed the above "must" happen, with link to post or the post number.

Ad hominem as I am not the topic nor am I a leftist nor am I here to make a claim of a crime as I have yet to see evidence of a crime nor am I an expert on the criminal code.

Ad hominem as I am not the topic.

 

He's peddling the Trump line. He knows it's bogus, but he's a Trumster, so he's on his parrot perch!

Besides, who in their right mind ever doubted that people were going to start following the money?

After all. Trump has refused to disclose his holding, refused to divest himself, refused to surrender day to day operations of his businesses (except to people he sees in the White House every day), and is still profiting personally from peddling his office.

And his long history of dealing with Russian gangster is no secret. Nobody on Wall Street would trust him. So he had to go to the sharks.

 

Just like I said in my previous post, your "I can't allege a crime but you can't prove you did not commit it" meme is patently and obviously meaningless and requires no rebuttal.

So we can then agree that they were under absolutely no legal obligation to report the invitation to the FBI, right? I will settle for that.