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

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845637]... because they did illegal things and are hoping to push them into testifying against higher up people?[/QUOTE] So why didn't [I]the state AG[/I] arrest them? Why didn't Mueller hand this off entirely? Why is he [u]handling these cases personally[/u]? Why did his team [B]meet with their judge[/B], ex-parte, in secret, to provide what was apparently such clear and damning evidence that even the judge effectively stated 'wow these guys are going to jail'? I keep hearing this scene in my head, sgman91, every time you've replied in the last page and a half. Maybe it's time to do more research and stop claiming you 'know everything' and therefore 'we're wrong'. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx32b5igLwA[/media]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845637]... because they did illegal things and are hoping to push them into testifying against higher up people?[/QUOTE] ...how was a completely unrelated crime pursued, led to arrests, by people employed and empowered to investigate the Russian meddling in the 2016 election? Considering that the government would be within its rights to clamp down on it if they extended their mandate? And they don't, but instead choose to panic?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52845610]The White House is in shambles right now. Trump is deeply worried (and for good reason), and the mood is so tense that people literally walk out of the room if Russia is mentioned for fear of being caught up in the situation. Trump's support has even waivered so much among his own party that there are serious concerns that he would not survive the vote if the 25th amendment were invoked. Steve Bannon is urging Trump to kill this investigation by any means possible, fearing that it will soon cut to the heart of the administration and undermine its power. [url]https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/the-west-wing-trump-is-apoplectic-as-allies-fear-impeachment[/url] But I'm sure Sgman is right. This is all just a Nothing Burger.[/QUOTE] Vanityfair is a banned source, no? It is listed as having "left" bias.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845652]Vanityfair is a banned source, no? It is listed as having "left" bias.[/QUOTE] "Oooh, lookit this, it leans left! Cannot be used as source!" (While listening to tinyhands) Again: How was a completely unrelated crime pursued, led to arrests, by people employed and empowered to investigate the Russian meddling in the 2016 election? Considering that the government would be within its rights to clamp down on it if they extended their mandate? And they don't, but instead choose to panic?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52845625]Oh we already know his song and dance on that. 'It was just financial crimes though - absolutely no connections to Russia!' Of course that, too, is false.[/QUOTE] The problem is that he absolutely refuses to look at things in a broader scope. He insists on compartmentalizing the crimes so that they appear unrelated to the aims of the investigation. Yet, when viewed in context of Mueller's objectives, it paints an incredibly clear picture: he is leveraging these people, flipping them on those higher up. Papadopoulos, we know, exchanged intel and services (likely including wearing a wire) for lesser charges. Manafort and Gates have been charged with several crimes that are easy to prove, but the wording in their indictment is actually quite specific to the fact that they may not be [I]all[/I] the crimes that Mueller and his team are aware of, and that new charges may be appended at any time. He will hold this over their heads to attempt to force them into a plea deal, to flip on those above them. Mueller is going after the low hanging fruit, and leveraging it to get the bigger bounties. Everything he has done thus far has been in line with the goal of unraveling this administration's lies and corruption.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845652]Vanityfair is a banned source, no? It is listed as having "left" bias.[/QUOTE] That is your weakest rebuttal yet. [url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-bannon-mueller-20171031-story.html]Would you like it from the Chicago Tribune instead?[/url] Oh, and that one was written with the help of folks from the Washington Post too.

[QUOTE=torres;52845648]...how was a completely unrelated crime pursued, led to arrests, by people employed and empowered to investigate the Russian meddling in the 2016 election? Considering that the government would be within its rights to clamp down on it if they extended their mandate? And they don't, but instead choose to panic?[/QUOTE] The scope of the investigation is officially stated as such: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confined by then-FBI Director James 8. Cormey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). ([url]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726381/Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.pdf[/url]) So anything they find while investigating the whole Russia thing is within bounds. Anything at all.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845665]The scope of the investigation is officially stated as such: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confined by then-FBI Director James 8. Cormey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). ([url]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726381/Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.pdf[/url]) So anything they find while investigating the whole Russia thing is within bounds. Anything at all.[/QUOTE] So you're stating that Mueller is so carefree and that he's so confident in his own case that he's just going after things entirely unrelated to the primary thrust of his investigation? That he'd jeapordize his whole damn investigation by filing for an 'unrelated case' as his first public act that could be scrutinized by Congress and the AG? That his enormous team of the best lawyers in America - no exaggeration - have decided that they're just going to go nuts and file crimes on anyone and everyone? Is this your defense and explanation?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52845659]The problem is that he absolutely refuses to look at things in a broader scope. He insists on compartmentalizing the crimes so that they appear unrelated to the aims of the investigation. Yet, when viewed in context of Mueller's objectives, it paints an incredibly clear picture: [B]he is leveraging these people, flipping them on those higher up.[/B] [/QUOTE] Here, let me quote myself: [QUOTE]... because they did illegal things and are hoping to push them into testifying against higher up people?[/QUOTE] That sounds like the same thing you said.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845673]Here, let me quote myself: That sounds like the same thing you said.[/QUOTE] Except BDA's statement was in context with the Russia Investigation, where yours [U]was not[/U]. You're arguing that what's going on here is 'outside the scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election', BDA and [I]more importantly, Robert Mueller[/I], disagree. You seem to have a lot of trouble with context. You should take some time to read up on this investigation since you seem to be missing a lot of contextual information.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52845671]So you're stating that Mueller is so carefree and that he's so confident in his own case that he's just going after things entirely unrelated to his investigation? That he'd jeapordize his whole damn investigation by filing for an 'unrelated case' as his first public act that could be scrutinized by Congress and the AG? That his enormous team of the best lawyers in America - no exaggeration - have decided that they're just going to go nuts and file crimes on anyone and everyone? Is this your defense and explanation?[/QUOTE] The person I responded to was asking how the charges against Manafort could possibly be about anything other than Russian collusion because Mueller's objective is Russian collusion. I was clarifying that Mueller's investigation is actually allowed to go after anything they find. They aren't limited in only being able to indict over things directly related to Russian collusion.

[quote]I was clarifying that Mueller's investigation is actually allowed to go after anything they find. They aren't limited in only being able to indict over things directly related to Russian collusion.[/quote] Yes, they are allowed to. [B]They are not so stupid as to do so in this, their opening salvo.[/B] The person you were talking to was likely expecting a reasonable explanation. You have provided not only an unreasonable one - but an uncharacteristic one in addition. Edit: Also, as the post below makes clear, even [I]if[/I] they decided to do so it would nonetheless be related to said investigation as it was found [I]in the course of conducting[/I] said investigation and so would necessarily 'be directly related'.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52845659]The problem is that he absolutely refuses to look at things in a broader scope. He insists on compartmentalizing the crimes so that they appear unrelated to the aims of the investigation. Yet, when viewed in context of Mueller's objectives, it paints an incredibly clear picture: he is leveraging these people, flipping them on those higher up. Papadopoulos, we know, exchanged intel and services (likely including wearing a wire) for lesser charges. Manafort and Gates have been charged with several crimes that are easy to prove, but the wording in their indictment is actually quite specific to the fact that they may not be [I]all[/I] the crimes that Mueller and his team are aware of, and that new charges may be appended at any time. He will hold this over their heads to attempt to force them into a plea deal, to flip on those above them. Mueller is going after the low hanging fruit, and leveraging it to get the bigger bounties. Everything he has done thus far has been in line with the goal of unraveling this administration's lies and corruption.[/QUOTE] Right, which is why you have to simplify. The longer your reply, the greater the chance is that Trumpers find something safe to reply/derail/shitpost about, and the whole effort is wasted. [QUOTE=sgman91;52845665]The scope of the investigation is officially stated as such: The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confined by then-FBI Director James 8. Cormey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). ([url]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726381/Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.pdf[/url]) So anything they find while investigating the whole Russia thing is within bounds. Anything at all.[/QUOTE] They can only pursue matters linked to Russia meddling, by your own sources. So why were the arrests made? In an investigation solely designed to uncover Russian meddling, I mean. These were not separate arrests by a different team. If they were differing crimes, then surely Mueller would pass it along to have more time to pursue Russia, not this smokescreen, right?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52845674]Except BDA's statement was in context with the Russia Investigation, where [B]yours [U]was not[/U][/B]. You're arguing that what's going on here is 'outside the scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election', BDA and [I]more importantly, Robert Mueller[/I], disagree. You seem to have a lot of trouble with context. You should take some time to read up on this investigation since you seem to be missing a lot of contextual information.[/QUOTE] What, yes it was? He asked about the people arrested by the Russian investigation team (i.e. Manafort, Gates, and Papadopoulos). I responded by saying that Mueller is trying to flip them on high up people. I'm not at all arguing that these indictments are outside the scope of the investigation (based on the official description of the investigation, they are most definitely within it's scope). I'm arguing that the claims about collusion are going way beyond the evidence that we have so far. There may be more to come out later than totally confirms collusion between Trump and Russia... but we don't have that yet.

[quote]I'm arguing that the claims about collusion are going way beyond the evidence that we have so far. There may be more to come out later than totally confirms collusion between Trump and Russia... but we don't have that yet.[/quote] We [I]do[/I] have that, you just [B]refuse to believe in said evidence[/B]. Tell me how the confirmation that Manafort and Gates were directly paid by Russian oligarchs literally millions of dollars has 'no bearing to the Russian collusion investigation' while Manafort [I]was operating as an agent of a foreign nation[/I]. I think in your mind that if Mueller doesn't find a god-damn VHS tape taken from Trump's house labeled 'HOW I COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 ELECTIONS' then there will never be 'any confirmation of collusion'. Only 'disputable evidence'.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845692]What, yes it was? He asked about the people arrested by the Russian investigation team (i.e. Manafort, Gates, and Papadopoulos). I responded by saying that Mueller is trying to flip them on high up people. I'm not at all arguing that these indictments are outside the scope of the investigation (based on the official description of the investigation, they are most definitely within it's scope). I'm arguing that the claims about collusion are going way beyond the evidence that we have so far. There may be more to come out later than totally confirms collusion between Trump and Russia... but we don't have that yet.[/QUOTE] when the writing is on the wall in bright neon colours it's kinda hard to explain this better than anyone here already has to you.

[QUOTE=torres;52845684]They can only pursue matters linked to Russia meddling, by your own sources. So why were the arrests made? In an investigation solely designed to uncover Russian meddling, I mean. These were not separate arrests by a different team.[/QUOTE] Please read it again. They can investigate: "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." So if they run into something illegal during the investigation, whatever it is, they can go after it.

[url]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/31/chris_hayes_to_carter_page_congratulations_on_not_being_indicted_do_you_have_an_attorney.html[/url] I know the sourcing won't be to your liking, but the video is all that really matters. The amount of things tying all this together and giving Trump very little leeway to say he wasn't complicit or aware is insane and it's equally baffling and hard to deal with that none of that seems to show any merit to you.

[quote]it's equally baffling and hard to deal with that none of that seems to show any merit to you.[/quote] It's actually easy if you watch carefully about how he's wiggling around in this argument. Any time greater context is brought up, he dodges or ignores those statements. He can only argue this specific incident within these specific bounds and [I]only[/I] while disagreeing on 'what the definition of is is' and refuses to consider 'outside events' because, as he himself has admitted, he hasn't even [I]looked into[/I] this investigation more than this article. Or, if he has, then whoever he's getting his information from is only very lazily following this investigation. He demonstrated he wasn't even aware of Jr's e-mails which should clearly indicate to you his level of care and research on this particular subject, despite his absolute insistence that 'there's nothing here'.

Can we all just ignore sgman at this point? He's the only one keeping this conversation going. Its pretty clear his mind isn't gonna be changed by any amount of facts.

Jesus Christ, I've never seen someone persist so long in a discussion yet be so uninformed and stubborn.

I'd propose a new rule to Polidicks: When a user enters straight up "I reject objective reality" territory, it calls for a week-long ban. At that point, it's not discussion anymore, but shitposting and derailing for whatever reason. It seriously ruins any meaningful discussion, and it is like pulling teeth. For a template for what that territory is, I'd point to sgman91 in the last few pages. Anyway, now we just wait for what Mueller has planned next, and ignore sgman91 and see if he will have to eat his words. Which I think is pretty fucking likely.

CNN just said manafort was registered on 3 phones under fake names lmao. Also Trump is rejecting bannons hardline calls for now and he told nytimes he's not under investigation

[QUOTE=Kahgarak;52845805]Jesus Christ, I've never seen someone persist so long in a discussion yet be so uninformed and stubborn.[/QUOTE] Sgman argued that libtard wasn't offensive once. He's an odd duck.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;52845871]CNN just said manafort was registered on 3 phones under fake names lmao. Also Trump is rejecting bannons hardline calls for now and [B]he told nytimes he's not under investigation[/b][/QUOTE] More damning: he had three different passports, multiple fake aliases. It's absurd to me that they only have him under house arrest. Dude should be in lockup. Also, lmao at him stating he's not under investigation.

If he listens to Bannon and tries to cut Mueller's funding, he's instantly done for. That's an instant obstruction of justice charge and the impeachment begins. Trump has someone else he's listening to that isn't as rash as Bannon and I'd like to know who it is. Also, where the fuck is Pence in all this? Is he hiding in a closet (not metaphorically, although I'm sure that's the case as well)?

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52846118]If he listens to Bannon and tries to cut Mueller's funding, he's instantly done for. That's an instant obstruction of justice charge and the impeachment begins. Trump has someone else he's listening to that isn't as rash as Bannon and I'd like to know who it is. Also, where the fuck is Pence in all this? Is he hiding in a closet (not metaphorically, although I'm sure that's the case as well)?[/QUOTE] Pench has to be considering resigning and distancing himself as much as he can. He HAS to be implicated and will do all he can to escape this shitstorm.

Why would he resign? He gets to be president soon and enact his own awful agenda. Hopefully he's implicated though, but for some reason I doubt it.

Pence is sitting in the corner, crying to himself, "I didn't ask for this. I just wanted to crucify those fags."

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52846118]If he listens to Bannon and tries to cut Mueller's funding, he's instantly done for. That's an instant obstruction of justice charge and the impeachment begins. Trump has someone else he's listening to that isn't as rash as Bannon and I'd like to know who it is. Also, where the fuck is Pence in all this? Is he hiding in a closet (not metaphorically, although I'm sure that's the case as well)?[/QUOTE] He's been caught lying on a few occasions but it's murky if he's actually involved in all this business.