Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort Charged with "Conspiracy Against United States" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52841222]Finally, as to sgman's question about Papadopoulos's promotion to an emissary? Papadopoulis [I]personally[/I] revealed to Trump and the National Security team that he was a Kremlin agent in the infamous March 31st meeting. Two days later, on April 2nd, Trump sent him to Israel to brief them on Trump's foreign policy in a closed-door meeting. [url]http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210258[/url] Not exactly the work of a low level coffee boy.[/QUOTE] isn't arutz sheva a bannable source?

can we pre-load the sealed indictment on steam

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52841659]isn't arutz sheva a bannable source?[/QUOTE] You could always look it up. Also, no; it's center-right and has a High rate of factual reporting, which falls within the scope of postable sources. [thumb]https://imgur.com/jCbJfUJ.png[/thumb]

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52841680]You could always look it up. Also, no; it's center-right and has a High rate of factual reporting, which falls within the scope of postable sources. [thumb]https://imgur.com/jCbJfUJ.png[/thumb][/QUOTE] Reason I asked is because I was banned for using it once and I've stayed away from it for that reason.

[QUOTE=milktree;52841677]can we pre-load the sealed indictment on steam[/QUOTE] No, but I hear you can still see the APIQ (Awful Presidents Impeached Quick) stream; Trump's on track to a new record speed run!

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52841718]Reason I asked is because I was banned for using it once and I've stayed away from it for that reason.[/QUOTE] For using the source or for other reasons? I'm betting it was for other reasons. Additionally, they may have been re-evaluated in the time between when you last used it and the present. Edit: Yeah, just took a look. That was literally more than 3 years ago.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52841386]@sgman gishgallop, obfuscate and drill down into semantics much? [editline]31st October 2017[/editline] Lol you're worse than me![/QUOTE] Honestly, what semantics am I arguing about? I'm trying to differentiate between when we actually know, what is assumption, and what is totally false.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52841780]For using the source or for other reasons? I'm betting it was for other reasons. Additionally, they may have been re-evaluated in the time between when you last used it and the present.[/QUOTE] According to his events log, 41 months ago he was banned for the reason "Don't post from Arutz Sheva". My guess is it's the latter choice of the guidelines have been re-evaluated.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52841782]Honestly, what semantics am I arguing about? I'm trying to differentiate between when we actually know, what is assumption, and [B]what is totally false[/B].[/QUOTE] For which you've proven yourself an amazing arbiter and judge already. You are literally arguing over semantics in this very post. [quote]My guess is it's the latter choice of the guidelines have been re-evaluated.[/quote] I don't think it's that the guidelines were re-evaluted; I think the site was re-evaluated.

So what about Tony Podesta? [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Sgt Doom))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52840442]Watching some CNN (bias warning) interview where they talked to some republican, I was listening before I headed to work. His defense was that the U.S interferes in elections too therefor it isn't a big deal. So look forward to that """"defense.""""[/QUOTE] Already seen it on Facebook. "Meme magic" seems to be alive and well.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52841794]For which you've proven yourself an amazing arbiter and judge already. You are literally arguing over semantics in this very post. I don't think it's that the guidelines were re-evaluted; I think the site was re-evaluated.[/QUOTE] I may be right, and I may be wrong. The whole point of discussion is to go back and forth, providing evidence and argument, until some form of clarity is reached. What word am I arguing over the meaning of?

I think now is a good time to look back at the G20 summit this summer. [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1570224"]In July, The G20 summit was held in Hamburg, and there, Trump "officially" met Putin for the "first" time.[/URL] The thread documents how this was hardly his first meeting with Putin. [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1571859"]And then we found out he and Putin had an hour alone together with only Putin's translator present.[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1572175"]And then the Russian Foreign Minister suggested Putin and Trump might've met on even more occasions during the summit.[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1573405"]And finally, on the flight home, Trump overruled his staff and personally dictated that the alibi for Don Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer for dirt on Hillary Clinton was to be framed as a lawyer wanting to talk to Jr. about the adoption of Russian children.[/URL] And on the topic of that meeting, let's see... [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1571376"]the meeting was definitely with Russians with suspicious connections.[/URL] [media]https://twitter.com/politico/status/884167996880678912[/media] As for the cover story, well, Don Jr. lost his cool. To the consternation of journalists. [IMG]https://i.redd.it/1xapvw7tiz8z.jpg[/IMG] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1571376"]But strangely Don didn't identify everyone at the meeting and deliberately left a lot of information out, like one of the attendees being ex-GRU.[/URL] [media]https://twitter.com/yashar/status/884900796957171712[/media] Surely a coincidence. [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEWqSl4UwAEI_aJ.jpg[/IMG] Remember that Trump server that made lots of contact with the Russian-controlled Alfa bank? What could it mean? :thinking: [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1571833"]As people were identified as participating in the Trump Tower meeting, financial investments, shell companies, and conditions that look suspiciously like they'd facilitate money laundering turned up.[/URL] :thinking: [media]https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/884597356133580800[/media] :thinking::thinking::thinking: Reince Priebus and Roger Stone are probably worried that they're on Mueller's shit list. [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1571154"]I'm sure it's just coincidence that US intelligence picked up Russians discussing Trump associates in 2015.[/URL] [media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/923905540291522560[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/925006418989715456[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/886541955311816705[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/862998775731818496[/media] Trump has been adamantly screaming that he has not been involved in collusion. [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1571691"]Except for when he changes directions and goes all-in on "what's wrong with collusion anyway?" instead.[/URL] [media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/875305788708974592[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/875682853585129472[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/879324620159160322[/media] Trump has long insisted there's no proof of the allegations. While throwing empty taunts at Comey that he supposedly had "tapes", he's demanded tapes. [media]https://twitter.com/MichaelRWarren/status/925021400355794949[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/925115577190010880[/media] Oops, how about them tapes. :v:

I hope the future process will be positive and this orange idiot and his friends are going to get impeached.

Genuinely curious: What will happen to the people Trump appointed to government positions (Pence, Pruitt, DeVos, Perry, etc) if (when) he faces criminal charges? Trump (Putin/Russia) has effectively usurped the US government, and deliberately shoved incompetent or malignant people in charge. They can't just go on, can they? They'll just keep his train going, but get someone marginally more competent to lead them. Also, what will happen to any policy he (Republicans) enacted during his tenure?

[QUOTE=torres;52842022]Genuinely curious: What will happen to the people Trump appointed to government positions (Pence, Pruitt, DeVos, Perry, etc) if (when) he faces criminal charges? Trump (Putin/Russia) has effectively usurped the US government, and deliberately shoved incompetent or malignant people in charge. They can't just go on, can they? They'll just keep his train going, but get someone marginally more competent to lead them. Also, what will happen to any policy he (Republicans) enacted during his tenure?[/QUOTE] I'm no US political historian, or a legal expert, but this situation is completely without historical precedent. The federal government has never been corrupted to such a deep level before. The closest thing is Nixon but Nixon is at least an order of magnitude smaller and less insane than this.

[QUOTE=torres;52842022]Genuinely curious: What will happen to the people Trump appointed to government positions (Pence, Pruitt, DeVos, Perry, etc) if (when) he faces criminal charges? Trump (Putin/Russia) has effectively usurped the US government, and deliberately shoved incompetent or malignant people in charge. They can't just go on, can they? They'll just keep his train going, but get someone marginally more competent to lead them. Also, what will happen to any policy he (Republicans) enacted during his tenure?[/QUOTE] If the President is impeached, convicted, and summarily removed from office, it does not strictly affect the other members of his administration. They may have their own impeachment proceedings if the Congress finds it appropriate to go down that route. Any policy enacted at the executive level can be changed by the President, regardless of who actually holds the office. If you're referring to laws passed in the Congress, that remains their domain, as it is an independent branch from the executive. [editline]31st October 2017[/editline] Of course, there is always the slim chance that the Congress might decide to change the rules or attempt to do something wholly unique from the processes laid out in the Constitution -- such as "impeach the entire administration," however that might be defined. That would be a legally gray area, and probably incite months or years of deliberation in the courts. Assuming the established procedure for this sort of thing is held to, and assuming the President, his Vice-President, and every individual they have together appointed to a government position are determined to be culpable of some sort of crime or Congressionally-indictable offense, they would each face individual impeachment and removal proceedings.

Skimmed through the 12 pages of this thread, what are the odds Trump gets impeached soon?

[QUOTE=The Ultimate;52842083]Skimmed through the 12 pages of this thread, what are the odds Trump gets impeached soon?[/QUOTE] Odds of him getting impeached "soon" are pretty slim as was the case before, but the proverbial noose is continuing to tighten at a higher speed and the walls are starting to close in. This is pretty much the beginning of the end of the Trump administration, but the investigation could take months at the minimum unless he resigns or the GOP stop being so cowardly and spineless (which isn't gonna happen lol).

[QUOTE=The Ultimate;52842083]Skimmed through the 12 pages of this thread, what are the odds Trump gets impeached soon?[/QUOTE] There is virtually no way to be certain as information is changing by the hour. All that can be done now is to wait and see. If you do decide to take the dark road and speculate on any of the myriad possibilities that could arise from the relatively scant information we have available to us, I would caution you to do your own research. This is a topic of national importance; only a fool would take as fact any of the theories posted in this thread.

Yeah I think realistically it will obliterate any chance he has or the GOP has of getting the presidency in again in 2020. It will be interesting to see what will happen if Manafort goes to trial and the impact it will have though.

[QUOTE=torres;52842022]Genuinely curious: What will happen to the people Trump appointed to government positions (Pence, Pruitt, DeVos, Perry, etc) if (when) he faces criminal charges? Trump (Putin/Russia) has effectively usurped the US government, and deliberately shoved incompetent or malignant people in charge. They can't just go on, can they? They'll just keep his train going, but get someone marginally more competent to lead them. Also, what will happen to any policy he (Republicans) enacted during his tenure?[/QUOTE] I think the honorable thing to do would be to resign from their positions. They could ask the interim president and congress to reappoint them, and that decision could be based on their merits (or lack thereof). That would be the best case scenario. I doubt most of those chucklefucks would do it though. They're probably going to have to be drawn kicking and screaming out of their posts.

[url]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/top-trump-campaign-aide-clovis-spoke-mueller-team-grand-jury-n816106[/url] [Quote] WASHINGTON — Sam Clovis, the former top Trump campaign official who supervised a man now cooperating with the FBI's Russia investigation, was questioned last week by special counsel Robert Mueller's team and testified before the investigating grand jury, a person with first-hand knowledge of the matter told NBC News. Clovis, who is President Donald Trump's pick to be the Department of Agriculture's chief scientist, could not be reached for comment. His lawyer, Victoria Toensing, would neither confirm nor deny his interactions with the Mueller team. "I'm not going to get into that," she said in an interview. Clovis, spotted by reporters in the Hart Senate Office Building, declined to answer questions.[/quote] Pretty huge. Clovis is the on who told Papadopoulos to go ahead and set a meeting with Russian agents, and is suspected to have been the target of Papadopoulos's "active cooperation" (wearing a wire) over the last three months. Clovis was brought in last week, before this news broke, to testify in front of a Grand Jury. If Mueller has incriminating tapes and info on Clovis, then that testimony could be his undoing. In all likelihood, he perjured himself. Clovis is the next domino to fall, and will flip on Trump, if he hasn't already.

[QUOTE=torres;52842022]Genuinely curious: What will happen to the people Trump appointed to government positions (Pence, Pruitt, DeVos, Perry, etc) if (when) he faces criminal charges? Trump (Putin/Russia) has effectively usurped the US government, and deliberately shoved incompetent or malignant people in charge. They can't just go on, can they? They'll just keep his train going, but get someone marginally more competent to lead them. Also, what will happen to any policy he (Republicans) enacted during his tenure?[/QUOTE] i think saying Russia usurped the US is a little much. it's not like all Trump's cronies are Russian agents like Manafort, just narcissists way out of their depth. we need to keep a careful balance between recognizing Russia's capabilities while not losing our heads and thinking they've taken over the world. that line of thinking helps them just as much as the opposite does.

[QUOTE=The Ultimate;52842083]Skimmed through the 12 pages of this thread, what are the odds Trump gets impeached soon?[/QUOTE] Slim to none, but still much better than they were before.

It's juicy watching them all slowly fall.

[QUOTE=The Ultimate;52842083]Skimmed through the 12 pages of this thread, what are the odds Trump gets impeached soon?[/QUOTE] Low

[QUOTE=The Ultimate;52842083]Skimmed through the 12 pages of this thread, what are the odds Trump gets impeached soon?[/QUOTE] Null. Two people that are relatively minor are receiving charges due to money laundering and false income reports. Trump will be out of office in 2025 after his re-election, and I don’t know why people keep putting their money on Mueller’s goose chase

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52842136][url]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/top-trump-campaign-aide-clovis-spoke-mueller-team-grand-jury-n816106[/url] Pretty huge. Clovis is the on who told Papadopoulos to go ahead and set a meeting with Russian agents, and is suspected to have been the target of Papadopoulos's "active cooperation" (wearing a wire) over the last three months. Clovis was brought in last week, before this news broke, to testify in front of a Grand Jury. If Mueller has incriminating tapes and info on Clovis, then that testimony could be his undoing. In all likelihood, he perjured himself. Clovis is the next domino to fall, and will flip on Trump, if he hasn't already.[/QUOTE] I hope that guy gets fucked. Side note, The conservative outlet The Washington Examiner just put out a really shitty article about Clovis and a letter sent to congress by the Union of Concerned Scientists. [URL="https://s3.amazonaws.com/clovis-letter/clovis-scientist-sign-on-letter-final-list.pdf"]Here's the letter they sent[/URL]: [QUOTE]Congress emphasized the unique nature of the REE Under Secretary position by codifying through the 2008 Farm Bill that the nominee must come “from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics” (7 U.S.C. 6971)... In every aspect, [B]Clovis falls far short of the standards demanded by the position. While he holds a Doctorate of Public Administration, his professional background is completely devoid of relevant scientific experience that would otherwise equip him to fulfill his duties.[/B] The breadth of scientific literature that underpins the operation of our food and farm system is wide-ranging and complex. The USDA chief scientist must have a strong scientific background in order to oversee the department’s work in conducting research; administering scientific programs; and making crucial decisions on food safety, agricultural productivity, and emerging threats to public health. An individual without grounding in the scientific process is ill-suited to make informed, objective, and strategic investments for the future of American agriculture.[/QUOTE] They include one sentence devoted to Clovis' past racist and other bullshit comments, but the bulk of the letter is about what the [I]law[/I] requires for this position, why those requirements are important, and why Clovis is unqualified. What does the [URL="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/scientists-use-manafort-scandal-to-attack-trumps-usda-science-nominee/article/2639176"]Washington Examiner publish[/URL]? [QUOTE=Scientists use Manafort scandal to attack Trump's USDA science nominee]The group of activist scientists has long opposed Clovis' nomination. "He fails to meet even the most basic qualifications for the position as defined by Congress," said Mike Lavender, a senior official at the Union of Concerned Scientists who specializes in agriculture and food. Clovis "rejects mainstream climate science; he has made racist and homophobic comments and embraces conspiracy theories; and he has questioned the necessity of a basic farmer safety net," Lavender said. But now, there is a new objection: Clovis' potential involvement with the Trump campaign's Russian connections. The Russia ties are being raised one day after the special counsel's office announced that a federal grand jury indicted Manafort.[/QUOTE] They clarify at the end of the article that the letter sent has nothing to do with the whole Russian interference angle. They fail to provide a link to the letter being described. Their headline is seemingly worded to make it seem like scientists are both being partisan and opportunistic. I could go on, but why would I? Here's a [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/sam-cloviss-ties-to-russia-probe-cooperator-renews-opposition-to-his-usda-nomination/2017/10/31/9a3a58dc-be62-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html"]WaPo article[/URL] to compare it to. This article provides far more context, and more importantly actually references their source material. This means readers actually have the option to come to their own conclusions. The Examiner article is part of how and why people end up uninformed.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52842235]Null. Two people that are relatively minor are receiving charges due to money laundering and false income reports. Trump will be out of office in 2025 after his re-election, and I don’t know why people keep putting their money on Mueller’s goose chase[/QUOTE]I don't know if you're being /s but as a reasonable guy it scares me to think that people would vote for this guy once again.