"Paul Manafort gets additional 43 months"

He won in a fluke the last time, and it's unlikely that he will be able to draw to an inside straight again.

And the only people who will be suckers for his victim act are the same suckers who fell for it the last time, minus a few million who got wise in the interim.

Trump is a fraud and a fake, and always has been. It's a sad reflection on American conservatives that they have allowed themselves to be hijacked by a carnival barker with a pied piper act.

 

Lol, remember GWB by any chance? That's who won in a fluke... then he proceeded to lose WTC, start 2 unwinnable wars, fail to catch OBL, fail on economy....

And then, a draft dodger that he was, he wiped the floor with decorated Vietnam hero John Kerry.

Keep dreaming that a bunch of leftist America hating antisemitic lunatics that the Dem party is today can defeat this great, delivering on his campaign promises street fighter president.

 

Your name calling is showing some signs of wear.

Yeah, I remember that. And I criticized him mightily over his unnecessary war in the wrong country too.

He didn't wipe the floor with Kerry. Indeed he won the narrowest re election victory of any sitting President since WWII. And Kerry had that idiot Bill Shurm as his campaign manager (he never won an election in his life).

I suspect that you were one of the right wingers cheering loudly for Mr Bush's war, and bobbing your head at Cheney's wildly exaggerated claims as amplified by Fox Noise.

And I'm sure you were one of the right wingers who ranted that OBL must be dead (as the Bushies tried to claim several times).

But you do make a good point.

The last time a Republican won a Presidential election, AND had a popular vote majority was 31 years ago. (with the exception of Bush's narrow re-election).

You don't seem to mind that Trump is a draft dodger too.

 

Lol, your "last time a Republican won with the exception of the last time it happened..." BS is actually funny.

The point is, despite WTC, two bad wars, horrible economy and war hero opponent, GWB won the reelection.... which makes Trump's reelection a virtual certainty given amazing economy, peace, prosperity, full employment.

PS you must have missed the fact that the popular vote is a statistical curiosity, nothing more, it's NOT part of the competition. I will take electoral college victory and 200 more judges nominated by Trump (among his others counless WINNINGS) any day. You?

 

Good luck with that - especially given that Mueller is one of the biggest swamp creatures of them all. Given that Paul was not on the Gov't payroll - this hardly constitutes "draining the swamp"

 

In the Trumpsters' definition of swamp thing, it's now necessary to add the police officers who arrest criminals.

 

Why do you guys keep pumping that "no collusion" thing. It just sounds so incredibly stupid.

The both Mueller and the judges in these cases against Manafort explicitly excluded all evidence that could pertain to that topic.

Being found guilty of crime A doesn't mean the perp is innocent of crime B.

 

This is a very strange post - and I have no idea what you are referring as it certainly makes no sense. Last I checked it was the Dem's who wanted to add the Police to the swamp list for arresting illegal aliens.

It is Trump that wants to increase police powers.

Mueller is part of the swamp - a true goblin.

 

You realize you're pearl clutching right? If infact Mueller could charge the case, he would've. But as those judges pointed out(And as you point out) he didn't, at least not in their courtroom.

While I'm at it, Amy Berman Jackson has been unprofessional in my view and it's time to raise some objections to her own pearl clutching.

1) It was in her OWN ruling that the Special Counsel couldn't prove that Manafort lied with regard to Trump contacts. Her admonishing of Manafort violates her own ruling.

2) Her admonishing also prejudices any such future case, suggesting that he's guilty because he lied in this case. Prejudicing a possible future case is unacceptable for a judge and will go into evidence submission for a retrial!

Of course, those much smarter than her understands her pearl clutching: She's basically saying: "Well, you lied so we'll never know the truth!"
On a side note it indirectly implies she has no trust in the Special Counsel with regards to Collusion.

Sounds like a scorned Hillary voter actually She represented the sisterhood in the court of law.

 

WOW!!!

Look, the charges tried so far have not included anything that has a direct bearing on whether there was activity that could be described as "collusion".

The judges explicitly excluded that as being off the topic of the charges that were being tried. Mueller worked to keep such evidence OUT of the trials on those charges which stemmed from his investigation

So, you're just flat out wrong about what Mueller or these judges did.

Once again, there were charges and Jackson limited evidence and argument to the charges before the court.

EVERYTHING else you've said here is ridiculous, because it does not pertain to those cases OR the cases in the Ellis court.


Why do you keep bringing up "collusion"?

A trial is limited to the specific charges. When not even ONE of the charges is about "collusion", you can't claim that "collusion" was addressed - by the judge, by the prosecution, or by the prosecution.

 

Yes, it is. And it is one of the best political thrillers ever made, and accurate to a fault.

I remember Watergate very, very well. Every hearing was on TV in our house. In those day,of course, there was no 34/7 cable tv "news" and pundits were in newspapers (we got two, and usually picked up the Sunday Times or the Post). Back then, we had the closest thing to it, though. Back then, on Channel 5, they had a noontime talk show called Panorama. Hosted by none other than Maury Povich! And the entire Watergate crowd, the Senators, the Congressmen, the spin doctors (although that term hasn't been invented yet). It was all there for us in real time.

When the movie came out, I went on a date with one of the girls on the college paper, mainly because she had free preview passes.

 

Because it's a meme. There's no collusion, there never was any and if there was, Mueller would charge it. Yet, he didn't. You and the honorable judge are pearl clutching. You've been pearl clutching since the end of the 2016 elections. And far be it for me to stop you: Have at it, just be aware that it's unsightly.

 

You quote the meme because it's a meme?? Really?

Mueller isn't done. He's leaving the best for last - whatever "best" may turn out to be, it will be the piece that directly addresses the central points of his remit, obviously.

Clutch your own pearls. Or maybe put your pearls in your clutch.

 

At best: Money-laundering, using his real estate properties like Mar-a-logo. And even though that's a serious crime that should be prosecuted, it still wouldn't be 'collusion'. Hillary lost on her own merits.

 

So does that mean trump is actually a good president?

 

You Trumpsters have to keep turning up the volume every time your schmuck of a fuhrer bellows it.

That's about all you have left.

 

Not a Trumpster, this is just ridiculous. These crimes could've easily been independently investigated, but then the political noise would be zero.
Here's the reality: Because many disliked Trump on a personal, not political level there has never been an attempt to negotiate with the POTUS on any substantial matter thus undermining our process.

And hey, it worked. Trump will likely be a one-term president. At what cost to the nation though?

 

I don't know how this could be any clearer. Both judges stated on the record that collusion was not part of the Manafort trials. Still the Manafort attorneys and Trump loyalist keep telling us who follow the news how the trials have exonerated Tump from any collusion. Do you people ever listen?

 

If a person has political skills and has connections in politics there's no one else available to hire except felons, unless you're willing to raise a noob from nothing.

 

Who’s the last presidential campaign mgr to go to prison before Manafort?

 

I'm still not sure he aspires to re-election, I wouldn't in his place, his presidency hasn't been a pleasant or in any way fulfilling experience so far, he underestimated the virulence of the opposition (I did too). Then again, this is understandable, Trump is an anti-establishment president if anything, and the opposition is all about the status quo, but the level of opposition to everything Trump is really astonishing (I experienced -in California- Reagan and both Bushes and don't recall anything like what we see now). What I can't fathom is how ideologically committed critical lefties could be actually fighting against draining that swamp!

Trump appears to be campaigning for re-election, I think he actually could be re-elected, just because those running against him are so weak.

I don't know which (among the many) may emerge as a rival contender after the primaries, but as I scan them I really don't find anyone with a credible and resounding message. All deride and seem to actually hate Trump (this is the 'floor') but few posit an intelligent alternative. It is early, maybe someone will emerge with a 'vision' telling us where they want to lead the nation.

As to the "cost" of a failure by Trump to win re-election, this is very speculative, it would depend on the difference between the accomplishments of whoever prevailed and their difference from what Trump possibly could have accomplished in a second term.

 

Yep.
If Trump loses in 2020, you can expect a pardon for Manafort before Trump leaves office. Plus pro-active pardons for all his children, Kushner and himself for any federal crime committed before the date of the pardon.
If Trump wins in 2020, I expect Manafort's pardon will be shortly after Trump's re-inauguration. And the pardons for himself and his children (and Kushner) will be granted before he leaves office for his second term. He will literally give himself and his family a get out of jail free card.

 

Who's that last presidential campaign mgr to work for a non-swamper? My guess would be Perot's campaign mgr but that was a sweet spot for the swamp and they went unmolested.

 

Where does all the hate of Paul Manafort come from? As even Judge Berman said, Manafort is "Not public enemy number one." Manafort did not murder anyone or rape anyone. He did not even abuse puppies. He did some financial stuff which federal prosecutors looked at and gave him a pass on years ago, but along comes the Mueller Special Counsel investigation and Manafort is hated by the left because they could not get at Trump and so Manafort was a convenient scapegoat. Worst of all, Manafort did not even have the magic bullet with Trump's name on it.

 

I guess Trump apologists feel any need to be any more honest than Trump himself! (As in "no honesty at ALL!)