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

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167774]Please quote me on this.[/QUOTE] [quote]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.[/quote] Now would you, in kind, present 'the information that has leaked from his office'. e: I've been following this whole thing very closely and in real time. If [I]anything[/I] had leaked from his office, I'd wager I'd know about it. So far, every single leak has been from the congressional inquiries, from the legal teams of defendants, or from the white house.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167776]Now would you, in kind, present 'the information that has leaked from his office'.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/31/did-criminal-leak-land-cnns-story-mueller-probe-no/[/url] I haven’t claimed he was involved in purposefully leaking information, but indictments were reported before. So somehow someone got ahold of and leaked that information to the press.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167781][url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/31/did-criminal-leak-land-cnns-story-mueller-probe-no/[/url] I haven’t claimed he was involved in purposefully leaking information, but indictments were reported before. So somehow someone got ahold of and leaked that information to the press.[/QUOTE] Can you prove that that leak did not come from those who were brought before the Grand Jury? Or from the witnesses brought before it -- or the members of the Grand Jury itself? Also, indictments are public record. [I]Sealed[/I] indictments are not. The only information we get from those is a case number and where it was filed. Nonetheless, we can make educated guesses about what's in those sealed indictments even without leaks, such as whether or not it's likely they come from the same case - and the locations in question where they were filed can give some clue too. Are you sure you're not confusing investigative reporting by an entire industry with a laser focus on the SC with 'leaks from the SCO'?

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167774]Please quote me on this.[/QUOTE] For God's sake, you know what I meant lol. Your entire case has been arguing the point that if Mueller had any evidence, he'd have already moved to recommend charges. Are you actually going to address my argument at all, or continue playing coy? Here, I'll summarize it [B][U]again[/U][/B]: Mueller would delay recommending charges against Trump despite having direct evidence of crimes committed if his team were still actively investigating additional crimes, because that is the best possible strategic choice. An overwhelming mountain of recommended charges, backed by the biggest possible wealth of evidence, with the shortest possible time for his legal time to strategize effective defenses against them, has the best possible chance of impeachment, indictment, and conviction. When the subject of your investigation is the most powerful man in the world, you don't go in half-assed.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53167804]For God's sake, you know what I meant lol. Your entire case has been arguing the point that if Mueller had any evidence, he'd have already moved to recommend charges. Are you actually going to address my argument at all, or continue playing coy? Here, I'll summarize it [B][U]again[/U][/B]: Mueller would delay recommending charges against Trump despite having direct evidence of crimes committed if his team were still actively investigating additional crimes, because that is the best possible strategic choice. An overwhelming mountain of recommended charges, backed by the biggest possible wealth of evidence, with the shortest possible time for his legal time to strategize effective defenses against them, has the best possible chance of impeachment, indictment, and conviction. When the subject of your investigation is the most powerful man in the world, you don't go in half-assed.[/QUOTE] Also, I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I believe he is required to present his findings in a singular package when he does so rather than the small 'progress updates' he provides to the DAG. He'd be likely to do so anyway as the moment he presents any findings he could find people saying 'well you presented your findings, I guess that means you're done - so shut it down'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167791]Can you prove that that leak did not come from those who were brought before the Grand Jury? Or from the witnesses brought before it -- or the members of the Grand Jury itself? Also, indictments are public record. [I]Sealed[/I] indictments are not. The only information we get from those is a case number and where it was filed. Nonetheless, we can make educated guesses about what's in those sealed indictments even without leaks, such as whether or not it's likely they come from the same case - and the locations in question where they were filed can give some clue too. Are you sure you're not confusing investigative reporting by an entire industry with a laser focus on the SC with 'leaks from the SCO'?[/QUOTE] Indictments are public record. But they were reported on before they were ever actually filed.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167813]Indictments are public record. But they were reported on before they were ever actually filed.[/QUOTE] Defense attorneys would be aware of what's in those (to a less formal degree) and would likely request them the second they were filed before they entered the public record or their processing was finished, as likely discussions were made before those indictments were filed as inquests into 'are you sure your client doesn't want to save themselves from this going public' would be made.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53167804]For God's sake, you know what I meant lol. Your entire case has been arguing the point that if Mueller had any evidence, he'd have already moved to recommend charges. Are you actually going to address my argument at all, or continue playing coy? Here, I'll summarize it [B][U]again[/U][/B]: Mueller would delay recommending charges against Trump despite having direct evidence of crimes committed if his team were still actively investigating additional crimes, because that is the best possible strategic choice. An overwhelming mountain of recommended charges, backed by the biggest possible wealth of evidence, with the shortest possible time for his legal time to strategize effective defenses against them, has the best possible chance of impeachment, indictment, and conviction. When the subject of your investigation is the most powerful man in the world, you don't go in half-assed.[/QUOTE] If they were sitting on recorded conversations or high level testimony they would they have. Clinton was done in by a dress with a semen stain.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167827]If they were sitting on recorded conversations or high level testimony they would they have. Clinton was done in by a dress with a semen stain.[/QUOTE] Why? I can already hear the accusations of 'what if that tape is doctored'. Also, they have some testimony, yes, but why would they settle for anything less than absolutely airtight and insurmountably large? After all, Gates and Manafort both are convicted of lying to the FBI (all of those attached to Trump so far have) so there'll be immediate questions of 'what makes you so sure they're telling the truth in their testimony now'. The only solution for that is for them to get additional corroborative testimony and evidence. I'll remind: They had Nixon [I]on tape[/I]. He wasn't done in. He resigned before he could - but also after years and years of investigations and accusations. Mueller wouldn't want this to have the same impact as Nixon. He'd want to present a case so airtight and packed full of evidence and testimony that those he accuses are already practically convicted before they ever get even close to the witness stand.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167827]If they were sitting on recorded conversations or high level testimony they would they have. Clinton was done in by a dress with a semen stain.[/QUOTE] I'm going to say this again, because now you're getting a bit fucking ridiculous: explain your reasoning [I]why[/I], or don't bother posting anything else in this thread again. We have presented substantial reasoning for our side of the debate. You've done nothing but insist that we're wrong. Explain your rationale now, or you're just wasting everybody's time.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53167836]I'm going to say this again, because now you're getting a bit fucking ridiculous: explain your reasoning [I]why[/I], or don't bother posting anything else in this thread again. We have presented substantial reasoning for our side of the debate. You've done nothing but insist that we're wrong. Explain your rationale now, or you're just wasting everybody's time.[/QUOTE] If someone like Manafort flips to testify against Trump and they wait any long period of time then all their doing is giving the administration more time to prepare for how tight that testimony. How is that not a problem for a case?

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167852]If someone like Manafort flips to testify against Trump and they wait any long period of time then all their doing is giving the administration more time to prepare for how tight that testimony. How is that not a problem for a case?[/QUOTE] Manafort hasn't flipped, for one. Gates has. Second: Trump's defense team may know that Gates has flipped, but they don't know what he actually told Mueller's team. They don't get to listen to the interviews at this point, you know. Third: Gates' testimony almost certainly gave Mueller's team new evidence to pursue, new targets to chase, new witnesses to interview, etc. Why would Mueller go in on Gates' testimony alone if it could be corroborated with additional evidence? That'd be completely foolish. Testimony is obviously critically important, but to make it truly ironclad it must be corroborated. Fourth: Mueller may currently have cooperating witnesses other than Gates that we don't yet know about, whose testimony can prove additional crimes once it is verified and corroborated. Fifth: Mueller may have indictments prepared for several other people, who he believes can provide even more compelling and expansive evidence and testimony than Gates did.

[QUOTE=plunger435;53167852]If someone like Manafort flips to testify against Trump and they wait any long period of time then all their doing is giving the administration more time to prepare for how tight that testimony. How is that not a problem for a case?[/QUOTE] What's more a problem for the case is not having absolutely airtight evidence. I don't mean 'evidence that would convict 99% of the world'. I mean 'evidence so airtight you have no choice but to convict'. Manafort is accused of lying to the FBI -- [I]a lot[/I]. It absolutely impacts his credibility as a witness and the Justice League that Mueller has assembled all well know that. You've got Manafort, sure, but he's a little tainted. Are you going to gamble your whole case on whether or not you can prove his testimony is the truth? Got Manafort and Gates? Well, that's an argument sure -- but both of them weren't there for the full time of Trump's state and weren't privy to every piece of the puzzle you're trying to solve; also, both proven and self-confessed liars. If you're Mueller, as demonstrated by him not presenting his findings at this time and his office continuing to refuse to comment on literally anything, the answer is: you keep going until you build a case that nobody can defy is built on not only solid but impeccable foundations not just fact checked but double, triple, quadruple-sourced facts. If all you've got are liars, you better make sure you've got a whole pack of them - and that they all check out - before you even dare to put them on a witness stand.

Hypothetical conspiracy in my mind, but what happens once the time comes? Since the president is theoretically free of criminal charges until impeached or leaving office, is he free to move about (other than the fact that every move is being recorded)? Someone earlier said they thought about if he attempts to flee or sell us out, but what if something worse happens? If Mueller directly goes against Trump with allegations that he has ties to Russia and/or allowed Russian interference, what would be Russia's response? That's my question basically, what is Russia gonna do if their covert ops (or not covert if unrest was the goal) is exposed? Since they will most likely not sit on their hands during all this. My worst fear is that if they truly want to cause chaos (as suspicions are set at the moment), then the worst thing we can ask for is that they murder him and make it look like it was a Democrat or disgruntled civilian. That would flip his supporters through the f'n roof and cause no ends to the troubles. And if they get away with it without their agent being exposed, then wouldn't that divert attentions away for a short while?

Is it possible to have a mehathread for this topic? I.E just sticky this and change the title come updates

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53167884]Is it possible to have a mehathread for this topic? I.E just sticky this and change the title come updates[/QUOTE] This topic is going to consist of way too many updates for a megathread to be feasible. It’s better off having a thread for each piece of news so everyone can easily follow it. Feel free to make your own trump general discussion thread in GD, tho I’m pretty sure someone already tried that almost a year ago and it just died.