UPDATED 2/27: Richard Gates Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy Against the United States - Polidicks

Yeah, when push comes to shove, Trump will probably try to flee to Russia, and he'd then die under suspicious circumstances.

So I'm not well versed in the US justice system. But what does it mean that Gates has his charges dropped after a guilty plea? I thought the charges would stick but that he get a more lenient punishment instead.

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53166319]So I'm not well versed in the US justice system. But what does it mean that Gates has his charges dropped after a guilty plea? I thought the charges would stick but that he get a more lenient punishment instead.[/QUOTE] This isn't a ruling, but rather a relief from immediate prosecution. Gates can still eventually be prosecuted if they decide to restore the charges. What this means is that Gates made a deal with the FBI to testify against Manafort, since the latter refuses to accept his own charges and plans to fight them through litigation. If Gates later changes his mind or does a shitty job as a witness, his original charges can be brought against him in court. The goal is to not only put both men behind bars, but also to "flip" one or both to assist the larger investigation. If Manafort flips, he would likely be able to provide info against Trump.

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53166319]So I'm not well versed in the US justice system. But what does it mean that Gates has his charges dropped after a guilty plea? I thought the charges would stick but that he get a more lenient punishment instead.[/QUOTE] Gates didn't just plead guilty, pleading guilty was simply a part of a "plea deal," wherein he agrees to plea guilty, and willingly proffers testimony and evidence to help convict other people of more serious crimes. This is done in exchange for a reduced sentence and/or dropped charges. A plea deal of that nature is only extended if the subject can help convict people [I]higher[/I] in the investigative team's target list than himself, and the more damning the testimony, the better deal he's going to get. In this case, there aren't very many people higher than himself, as he was effectively in a partnership with Donald Trump's campaign manager and close personal "friend" and adviser. So, knowing that, and considering the magnitude of the crimes Gates was charged with, there is only one real explanation for why Mueller's team would drop [U]all[/U] charges: Gates' testimony, and the evidence he can provide to back it up, is so thorough and detailed that it provides an almost surefire conviction of somebody at the very top of the investigative target list. In all likelihood: Donald Trump himself. [editline]28th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Sega Saturn;53166340]This isn't a ruling, but rather a relief from immediate prosecution. Gates can still eventually be prosecuted if they decide to restore the charges. What this means is that Gates made a deal with the FBI to testify against Manafort, since the latter refuses to accept his own charges and plans to fight them through litigation. If Gates later changes his mind or does a shitty job as a witness, his original charges can be brought against him in court. The goal is to not only put both men behind bars, but also to "flip" one or both to assist the larger investigation. If Manafort flips, he would likely be able to provide info against Trump.[/QUOTE] Note that Manafort is not necessarily who Gates is testifying against. The charges that Mueller's team is already able to bring to bear are enough to put Manafort in prison for the rest of his life, and they can almost certainly secure a conviction. This is the greatest team of prosecutors ever assembled. Gates very likely knows everything Manafort knows. They were partners and co-conspirators in every crime they ever committed. For Gates to get a deal as [B]shockingly[/B] good as he's getting, he was going to have to bring a lot more than [I]more[/I] charges against Manafort to the table.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53166343]So, knowing that, and considering the magnitude of the crimes Gates was charged with, there is only one real explanation for why Mueller's team would drop [U]all[/U] charges: Gates' testimony, and the evidence he can provide to back it up, is so thorough and detailed that it provides an almost surefire conviction of somebody at the very top of the investigative target list. In all likelihood: Donald Trump himself.[/QUOTE] And considering how coincidentally Mueller is now [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-business-deals-mueller-asks-questions-about-2016-campaign-2018-2"]suddenly looking into direct correlations between Trump and Russia, and the timing of his 2016 campaign?[/URL] Oh yeah, I think we're about to see some shit go down.

[QUOTE=Marcolade;53165840]I've kept a Google Doc of all the various news postings of his stupid shenanigans, as well as the Trump-Russia investigation, if you want it. [URL="https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JQX1P2R8rPkeSFPIIJKsckRT2rc0ZP1mU5TaZTCgfQ/edit?usp=sharing"]#MakeAmericaGreatAgain[/URL][/QUOTE] Please sticky this

[QUOTE=Marcolade;53165840]I've kept a Google Doc of all the various news postings of his stupid shenanigans, as well as the Trump-Russia investigation, if you want it. [URL="https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JQX1P2R8rPkeSFPIIJKsckRT2rc0ZP1mU5TaZTCgfQ/edit?usp=sharing"]#MakeAmericaGreatAgain[/URL][/QUOTE] The fact each month has more and more news than the previous one is frightening.

[QUOTE=TheDrunkenOne;53167013]The fact each month has more and more news than the previous one is frightening.[/QUOTE] May 2017 has 2 articles, February 2018 has fucking 18 pages. :v:

[QUOTE=Cyan_Husky;53165839]"No evidence" is such a bullshit narrative anyway. The investigation is open, investigators have evidence than randoms don't.[/QUOTE] But as far as I’m aware there’s still no publicly available direct evidence.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167394]But as far as I’m aware there’s still no publicly available direct evidence.[/QUOTE] That's because it would be strategically and probably legally irresponsible to just immediately publicize every little thing. Mueller and co aren't in the business of showing off fresh dirt as they find it because this isn't a media witch hunt, it's a criminal investigation. They gather intel until they can determine a person is or is not implicated. If they are, down comes the hammer and the public gets to see the court filings. When Trump suggests there is no evidence he is only partially correct. It's true there is no *public* evidence, but we don't know what Mueller's team knows.

[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;53167451]That's because it would be strategically and probably legally irresponsible to just immediately publicize every little thing. Mueller and co aren't in the business of showing off fresh dirt as they find it because this isn't a media witch hunt, it's a criminal investigation. They gather intel until they can determine a person is or is not implicated. If they are, down comes the hammer and the public gets to see the court filings. When Trump suggests there is no evidence he is only partially correct. It's true there is no *public* evidence, but we don't know what Mueller's team knows.[/QUOTE] If Mueller’s team had direct evidence on Trump already the charges would have been filed. That would most certainly be enough to convict and they’re case would only be stronger by time it came to a trial. When someone says there is no direct evidence yet they’re right.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167489][B]If Mueller’s team had direct evidence on Trump already the charges would have been filed.[/B] That would most certainly be enough to convict and they’re case would only be stronger by time it came to a trial. When someone says there is no direct evidence yet they’re right.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but based on what? Going to need you to explain your reasoning for this. Mueller's team is investigating the President of the United States. You don't go off half-cocked on that. They may still be building a case and uncovering evidence, but to show what evidence they already have before they've used it to construct an absolutely ironclad case would be outrageously irresponsible.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53167505]I'm sorry, but based on what? Going to need you to explain your reasoning for this. Mueller's team is investigating the President of the United States. You don't go off half-cocked on that. They may still be building a case and uncovering evidence, but to show what evidence they already have before they've used it to construct an absolutely ironclad case would be outrageously irresponsible.[/QUOTE] Because a video, recording, or high level credible testimony is how you get convictions, you can’t get better than that. If they already had those things we’d be seeing charges already. Not to mention almost all the circumstantial evidence from it gets leaked months in advance already in the charging documents for other targets.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53167505]I'm sorry, but based on what? Going to need you to explain your reasoning for this. [B]Mueller's team is investigating the President of the United States. You don't go off half-cocked on that. [/B]They may still be building a case and uncovering evidence, but to show what evidence they already have before they've used it to construct an absolutely ironclad case would be outrageously irresponsible.[/QUOTE] Basically this bolded part. If there is anything you don't half-ass it's this. Whatever he puts forward (if he does) has to be rock-fucking-solid.

[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;53167534]Basically this bolded part. If there is anything you don't half-ass it's this. Whatever he puts forward (if he does) has to be rock-fucking-solid.[/QUOTE] It would be if they had direct evidence. All waiting would do is enable that information to leak like it did before the Manafort and Gates indictments as well as the Flynn indictment. People are already arguing whether Trump will be getting the death penalty or just life and there isn’t even any indictable evidence yet. People need to take a step back.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167533]Because a video, recording, or high level credible testimony is how you get convictions, you can’t get better than that. If they already had those things we’d be seeing charges already. Not to mention almost all the circumstantial evidence from it gets leaked months in advance already in the charging documents for other targets.[/QUOTE] It's not just about having pieces of high-level credible evidence. It has to be an airtight case because when the charges do come down Trump and every one of his supporters is [u]going to rip it to shreds[/u] looking for every conceivable inconsistency or gap in knowledge that they can leverage to try to discredit the case as the deep-state liberal conspiracy witch hunt they've been shrieking about and try to create a basis for dismissing the findings, which they [u]could conceivably do[/u] because the final word on impeachment is coming from a Republican-majority congress. There's no room for error here. It's going to be an uphill battle no matter how much credible evidence there is, so the more thorough and credible the investigation and its findings are, the better. [editline]February 28, 2018[/editline] Worth mentioning that even if the Republicans lose their majority in Congress, the findings of this investigation are likely to face just as much if not more public scrutiny. If Trump's impeached by a Democrat-majority congress it would serve to fuel the conspiracy narrative even harder. We have to make sure those conspiracies have as little ground to stand on as humanly possible or we could be facing massive civil unrest.

If Trump manages to break down the 2 party system on his way down, he might just be able to make America great again. Though just the so called GOP going down would already be an improvement.

While strong individual pieces of evidence would be compelling in most cases, the fact that it's the President of the United States they're dealing with might be why they're taking their time loading their guns. They probably wish to get every single charge out there that they can, to have EVERYTHING covered before they go public, so that there's not any hope beyond a doubt besides him pleading guilty and serving time for at least some of those charges. I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine that this is probably the case going into it. There's nothing a leak would do at this point presumably that hasn't already been done by fake news propaganda, crappy out of context memos, and twitter ramblings. Ah, I was ninja'd a bit.

Hope Hicks is out

[QUOTE=Clovernoodle;53167643]Hope Hicks is out[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/us/politics/hope-hicks-resign-communications-director.html"] [/URL][URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/us/politics/hope-hicks-resign-communications-director.html[/URL] Another one bites the dust.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167533]Because a video, recording, or high level credible testimony is how you get convictions, you can’t get better than that. If they already had those things we’d be seeing charges already. Not to mention almost all the circumstantial evidence from it gets leaked months in advance already in the charging documents for other targets.[/QUOTE] First of all: we [I]can[/I] infer the case being built on Trump from the circumstantial charges laid on Manafort and Gates. Mueller is following Russian money, utilizing shady lending and real estate deals to launder the illicit funds, particularly in the period surrounding the election, and noting many of the deals in or around New York City. In the indictments unnamed co-conspirators are noted. A major pillar of his case lies in proving that, with the aid of Manafort (now revealed to have been an active Russian agent), Russia funneled money to Trump's campaign. However, "unnamed co-conspirators" leads me to another point. The indictments already released are not a complete accounting. As they specifically note, additional indictments will follow. Those "unnamed co-conspirators" will not remain unnamed forever. What is public does not constitute all that is known. Key information on the people, methods, systems, and means of the crimes are redacted or not detailed, and would not be detailed at this stage. And, again, Mueller's team is not going to put all their cards on the table until they've exhausted every lead and built a case that is absolutely unassailable. It would be completely fucking bonkers for Mueller's team to jump the gun [I]before[/I] they've reached that point. Having conclusive evidence of one or more crimes is great, but if they are still pursuing several other crimes, why would they hamstring themselves by giving the defense team extra time to take on the charges as they come rather than as a single massive wall? I feel like you don't understand how investigations of this nature work, nor do you really appreciate the magnitude of what we're facing. Again, this is the [I]President of the United States[/I] -- arguably the most powerful person in the world. He must be [I]impeached from office[/I] before a trial can even occur. This is not something that you approach recklessly.

Don't forget that it is considered established precedent that the President is immune from criminal indictment while he is in office. The mechanism for his removal is impeachment, a political trial administered by Congress. After a successful impeachment, [I]then[/I] he is vulnerable to criminal charges. Literally everyone [I]but[/I] the President, Mueller can indict directly and apply due process on. Pence included.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53167684]Don't forget that it is considered established precedent that the President is immune from criminal indictment while he is in office. The mechanism for his removal is impeachment, a political trial administered by Congress. After a successful impeachment, [I]then[/I] he is vulnerable to criminal charges. Literally everyone [I]but[/I] the President, Mueller can indict directly and apply due process on. Pence included.[/QUOTE] I don't think that's settled. There's arguments, still, that he might still be indictable by folks who've researched the topic. Ultimately, I don't think we can know whether or not it's actually possible until someone tries seeing as there's nothing that explicitly forbids or permits it.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53167672]First of all: we [I]can[/I] infer the case being built on Trump from the circumstantial charges laid on Manafort and Gates. Mueller is following Russian money, utilizing shady lending and real estate deals to launder the illicit funds, particularly in the period surrounding the election, and noting many of the deals in or around New York City. In the indictments unnamed co-conspirators are noted. A major pillar of his case lies in proving that, with the aid of Manafort (now revealed to have been an active Russian agent), Russia funneled money to Trump's campaign. However, "unnamed co-conspirators" leads me to another point. The indictments already released are not a complete accounting. As they specifically note, additional indictments will follow. Those "unnamed co-conspirators" will not remain unnamed forever. What is public does not constitute all that is known. Key information on the people, methods, systems, and means of the crimes are redacted or not detailed, and would not be detailed at this stage. And, again, Mueller's team is not going to put all their cards on the table until they've exhausted every lead and built a case that is absolutely unassailable. It would be completely fucking bonkers for Mueller's team to jump the gun [I]before[/I] they've reached that point. Having conclusive evidence of one or more crimes is great, but if they are still pursuing several other crimes, why would they hamstring themselves by giving the defense team extra time to take on the charges as they come rather than as a single massive wall? I feel like you don't understand how investigations of this nature work, nor do you really appreciate the magnitude of what we're facing. Again, this is the [I]President of the United States[/I] -- arguably the most powerful person in the world. He must be [I]impeached from office[/I] before a trial can even occur. This is not something that you approach recklessly.[/QUOTE] The entire basis behind circumstantial evidence is inference. That’s why I’m not arguing that there is no circumstantial evidence, but that there is no direct evidence, which cannot by nature rely on inference. After all of these posts there’s still not been a single counterpoint to that side of my aeguement beyond speculation that it exists but Mueller is simply better at hiding it than all the other information leaked from his office. And giving a rundown of facts we already know does not constitute explaining that all away. I really can’t stress enough that there’s no magical threshold where circumstantial evidence becomes direct.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167732]The entire basis behind circumstantial evidence is inference. That’s why I’m not arguing that there is no circumstantial evidence, but that there is no direct evidence, which cannot by nature rely on inference. After all of these posts there’s still not been a single counterpoint to that side of my aeguement beyond speculation that it exists but Mueller is simply better at hiding it than all the other information leaked from his office. And giving a rundown of facts we already know does not constitute explaining that all away.[/QUOTE] People are put away all the time by 'circumstantial evidence'. If the evidence is compelling, the testimony fits the alleged crime, and jurors are convinced that is all that is necessary. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard, not 'provably factual and here's the video evidence, and here's the confession, and here's them doing it again in court for you, the jurors'. Typically, if the evidence is so compelling then it likely was actual evidence of a crime besides. Very few cases are resolved through direct evidence/confessions that do not rely on some manner of inference. Regardless, if we had any direct evidence we would be presently be in the process of detainment by the FBI as Facepunch was requested to delete our accounts and posts - as we would be in possession of evidence in an ongoing investigation. Mueller runs an incredibly tight ship. Zero leaks have come from the Special Counsel's office, which demonstrates that fact. If zero leaks at all are coming from their office it stands to reason that they will never disclose any direct evidence until it comes time to present it to the public.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167742]People are put away all the time by 'circumstantial evidence'. If the evidence is compelling, the testimony fits the alleged crime, and jurors are convinced that is all that is necessary. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard, not 'provably factual and here's the video evidence, and here's the confession, and here's them doing it again in court for you, the jurors'. Typically, if the evidence is so compelling then it likely was actual evidence of a crime besides. Very few cases are resolved through direct evidence/confessions that do not rely on some manner of inference. Regardless, if we had any direct evidence we would be presently being detained by the FBI as Facepunch was requested to delete our accounts and posts - as we would be in possession of evidence in an ongoing investigation. Mueller runs an incredibly tight ship. Zero leaks have come from the Special Counsel's office, which demonstrates that fact. If zero leaks at all are coming from their office it stands to reason that they will never disclose any direct evidence until it comes time to present it to the public.[/QUOTE] Like everyone has been saying before me, they need mountains of evidence to convict a president, and they’ll never go ahead with a case this large on circumstantial evidence alone. And that last paragraph of yours is just plainly false and hyperbolic. And all three major indictments were leaked ahead of time, its public knowledge, there’s even been articles about the leaks on FP.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167732]The entire basis behind circumstantial evidence is inference. That’s why I’m not arguing that there is no circumstantial evidence, but that there is no direct evidence, which cannot by nature rely on inference. After all of these posts there’s still not been a single counterpoint to that side of my aeguement beyond speculation that it exists but Mueller is simply better at hiding it than all the other information leaked from his office. And giving a rundown of facts we already know does not constitute explaining that all away.[/QUOTE] Speculating? We're explaining why, in simple strategic terms, Mueller would not recommend charges on Trump despite having direct evidence of committed crimes. The investigation is ongoing, and they are still following leads and interviewing witnesses. They are not going to recommend charges on Trump until all of those leads have been exhausted, and they have put together the biggest and most airtight case that they possibly can. Rationally explain why Mueller would jump the gun on pushing for impeachment and indictment before he had built the biggest and most damning case that he possibly could, or go away. You can't simply keep insisting, "if he had anything he'd release it," without offering any rationale whatsoever for your belief of that, despite our considered explanations of why doing so would be completely irresponsible and unlikely.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167752]Like everyone has been saying before me, they need mountains of evidence to convict a president, and they’ll never go ahead with a case this large on circumstantial evidence alone. [/quote] It certainly seems like he's building a mountain of evidence. This is how you put away Enron and the Mob - bit by bit, working your way up from floormen to their bosses, providing a chain of confessions and evidence that proves well beyond reasonable doubt your assertions - and that each of those assertions aren't just backed by evidence but testimony by folks who were in charge of those things. [quote]And that last paragraph of yours is just plainly false and hyperbolic.[/QUOTE] Rather than just state it's false and hyperbolic: Prove it. [quote=Big Dumb American]You can't simply keep insisting, "if he had anything he'd release it," without offering any rationale whatsoever for your belief of that, despite our considered explanations of why doing so would be completely irresponsible and unlikely.[/quote] His argument also is ridiculous because doing so would be illegal for the SC to do. He is to present his findings to the AG (or in this case the DAG due to Session's recusal) and to nobody and nowhere before then. Not that he would anyway, given that he's very much a man of law.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167752]Like everyone has been saying before me, they need mountains of evidence to convict a president, and they’ll never go ahead with a case this large on circumstantial evidence alone. And that last paragraph of yours is just plainly false and hyperbolic.[/QUOTE] No, Mueller's team would not recommend charges based purely on circumstantial evidence, but nor would they do so with direct evidence so long as they felt there was still room to build a larger and more damning case, with additional charges, additional evidence, additional testimony, and so forth. Your argument that they would immediately move to recommend charges they second they found any proof that Trump had committed a crime makes no fuckin' sense at all, dude.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53167754]Speculating? We're explaining why, in simple strategic terms, Mueller would not recommend charges on Trump despite having direct evidence of committed crimes. The investigation is ongoing, and they are still following leads and interviewing witnesses. They are not going to recommend charges on Trump until all of those leads have been exhausted, and they have put together the biggest and most airtight case that they possibly can. Rationally explain why Mueller would jump the gun on pushing for impeachment and indictment before he had built the biggest and most damning case that he possibly could, or go away. You can't simply keep insisting, [B]"if he had anything he'd release it,"[/B] without offering any rationale whatsoever for your belief of that, despite our considered explanations of why doing so would be completely irresponsible and unlikely.[/QUOTE] Please quote me on this.