Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Shalcker]

Yes it can. It establishes a timeline, as well as intent, to make good PR. Perfectly fine until the bail agreement. Not so much afterwards. Manafort's limp-dick claim that he had nothing to do with writing the article is now refuted by means, motive, and opportunity. Oh, and a witness. The fact that he agreed to change public opinion before the bail agreement doesn't change the fact that he did so after the bail agreement -- all it does, is make it more clear he was going to, and proves it was in no way an accident, which I'll remind you, used to be the defense. Not so much anymore.

Hmm, that's not how i read what his lawyer said.

He didn't post it in any Western Media; unless you are going to select jury just from Ukrainians who read Kiev Post it cannot be used to "poison" jury. As such this argument shouldn't hold water; we'll see how it will be decided.

...i guess if he wanted to make sure that no Ukrainians happen to be on jury duty that might be valid strategy.

And "accident"? He got article, he did a few edits (which amount to paragraph or two out of several pages), he sent that out, author heeded his remarks and added some extras, then it got published in Kiev Post.

You're trying to argue that, because he was trying to change the opinion of the public before the bail agreement he willingly signed, it was okay for him to violate it after he signed it.

You got to be following intent of that part first and foremost. And so you got to prove that publishing in Kiev newspaper is going to affect trial in any noticeable way.

I'm pretty sure that argument won't hold up in court.

We'll see soon enough.

[Breccia]

he did a few edits

Well that looks like admission Manafort broke bail. I think you'll find "he only broke the bail agreement a little" doesn't hold up in court, either.

Since you've admitted your entire position is destroyed, back on the ignore list you go.

[Shalcker]

Well that looks like admission Manafort broke bail. I think you'll find "he only broke the bail agreement a little" doesn't hold up in court, either.

Manafort lawyer argues that it doesn't; we'll see which argument will be stronger soon.

[Stormspark]

Well that looks like admission Manafort broke bail. I think you'll find "he only broke the bail agreement a little" doesn't hold up in court, either.

Since you've admitted your entire position is destroyed, back on the ignore list you go.

"I know I was speeding officer. But the speed limit was 65 and I was only going 90. It's not like I was going 120 or anything!"

[Breccia]

Apparently even Steve Bannon is concerned that Trump is deluded about the special counsel investigation, warning him that he's being fed "happy talk".

When your chief propagandist is concerned, you know there's a problem.

[Shalcker]

"I know I was speeding officer. But the speed limit was 65 and I was only going 90. It's not like I was going 120 or anything!"

More like "It's my car, and you know i didn't have my driver license, but i wasn't the one driving! I just made a suggestion on where we should go, my friend was driving instead!"

[timberx]

More like "It's my car, and you know i didn't have my driver license, but i wasn't the one driving! I just made a suggestion on where we should go, my friend was driving instead!"

No, it's more like: "I don't have a drivers license, but my friend did most of the driving, I only drove a little bit."

[Breccia]

No, it's more like: "I don't have a drivers license, but my friend did most of the driving, I only drove a little bit."

Manafort's "license" is suspended. That's even worse, at least, in my native NYState. Driving with no license is a $75-$300 fine and up to 15 days in jail. Driving with a license that's been suspended is $200-$500 and up to 30 days.

Why is it worse?

Because you got caught doing something wrong, and the law says you can't do it again. Kind of like breaking a bail arrangement you signed after you get caught lying to the FBI.

- - - Updated - - -

House might subpoena Donald Trump Jr.

Basically, there remain unanswered questions, because Don Jr. didn't answer questions, citing attorney-client privilege, despite other people being in the room, issues discussed other than legal issues, and the Russian lawyer not having Don Jr. as a client.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Can someone throw Shlacker a life raft already? He's been drowning this entire thread.

[Thekri]

Can someone throw Shlacker a life raft already? He's been drowning this entire thread.

In Soviet Union, Shlacker drowns water.

[Mormolyce]

Can someone throw Shlacker a life raft already? He's been drowning this entire thread.

Poor guy, the IRA probably doesn't pay overtime either.

[cubby]

Yes it can. It establishes a timeline, as well as intent, to make good PR. Perfectly fine until the bail agreement. Not so much afterwards. Manafort's limp-dick claim that he had nothing to do with writing the article is now refuted by means, motive, and opportunity. Oh, and a witness. The fact that he agreed to change public opinion before the bail agreement doesn't change the fact that he did so after the bail agreement -- all it does, is make it more clear he was going to, and proves it was in no way an accident, which I'll remind you, used to be the defense. Not so much anymore.

You're trying to argue that, because he was trying to change the opinion of the public before the bail agreement he willingly signed, it was okay for him to violate it after he signed it. I'm pretty sure that argument won't hold up in court. In fact, I think if it was a valid defense, they probably wouldn't have lied about Manafort working on the piece. But, they did. And now you're left back where you were before: parroting the "he worked for Ukraine not Russia" bit we now know he tried to use, to push the OP ED piece, that caused him to violate bail. I believe the term is "shrill" right @cubby ?

Shrill indeed. I'm fairly happy with the onset of that term, in both it's accuracy in what Trumpkins/RussPutkins do on these forums and the general idea that these people are beyond any real intelligent defense/debate and are left with basically arguing "the hooker was already dead when I did the line of coke".

[Breccia]

The judge has ruled on Manafort's OP ED. He was not found immediately in breach of his bail arrangement. However,
a) Manafort and his lawyer were directly, personally warned by the judge that communication with the media was forbidden.
b) Manafort's request for more room to move around the country, in exchange for four pieces of real estate, has not been ruled on yet. He's still under house arrest. The judge is both concerned that Manafort overestimated the values, and also that he got caught violating the gag order once already.
c) The judge also specifically and directly refuted the "it wasn't in a US paper so who cares" argument. It's invalid.

[Shalcker]

The judge has ruled on Manafort's OP ED. He was not found immediately in breach of his bail arrangement. However,
a) Manafort and his lawyer were directly, personally warned by the judge that communication with the media was forbidden.
b) Manafort's request for more room to move around the country, in exchange for four pieces of real estate, has not been ruled on yet. He's still under house arrest. The judge is both concerned that Manafort overestimated the values, and also that he got caught violating the gag order once already.
c) The judge also specifically and directly refuted the "it wasn't in a US paper so who cares" argument. It's invalid.

So, in the end, i was right...

One more brick into pattern of overreach by Mueller i guess.

[Breccia]

So, in the end, i was right

*ahem*

Hmm, that's not how i read what his lawyer said.

He didn't post it in any Western Media; unless you are going to select jury just from Ukrainians who read Kiev Post it cannot be used to "poison" jury. As such this argument shouldn't hold water; we'll see how it will be decided.

Your claim was discussed at the hearing, and rejected. You are a blatant liar and at this point objectively trolling.

[cubby]

So, in the end, i was right...

One more brick into pattern of overreach by Mueller i guess.

So they rule against what you said, literally, and you claim you were right? Awesome - in Soviet Russia Shalcker tell truth.

[Breccia]

Politico reports that Bannon could be next.

Mueller’s office declined comment for this story [EDITOR: Duh], but former Trump aides say they have no doubt Bannon will be questioned by Mueller. Given the black box the special counsel operates in, it’s possible Bannon has already spoken with the prosecutors.

“That in my mind is an unequivocal yes,” said a former Trump staffer familiar with the case. “It’d be malpractice not to interview him.”

Former Trump legal team spokesman Mark Corallo said he also expects Mueller to bring Bannon in as a witness. “There’s going to be a lot of people to be called in to discuss what happened in the Comey firing. I would not be shocked if someone like Steve got pulled in. That would be normal,” he said.

Bannon declined comment for this story.

[Sormine]

Politico reports that Bannon could be next.

Bannon is the Christmas present we've been waiting for. I'm convinced he'll trip up in some way, regardless of what information he knows.

[Dug]

White supremacists are like gang members and follow a no snitching code so don't expect much out of Bannon unless Muellers got some shit on him to turn up the heat.

[Ripster42]

Politico reports that Bannon could be next.

Wasn't there a story posted here about bannon saying that trump is taking the russia investigation way too lightly? That was here right?