Politics First Charges filed in Mueller Investigation

[dviss1]

Mueller is doing his job. If he does find something, we'll find out. If he doesn't, we may never know what he finds.

Do note that I've not called for Mueller to step aside or be fired. I think he should finish his work.

What are you going to do when he finds nothing?

What he's gonna find is an orange jumpsuit and a pair of bracelets for your president.

 

[Denny Crane]

What he's gonna find is an orange jumpsuit and a pair of bracelets for your president.

Wishful thinking and nothing more.

I'm surprised you buy into the actual witch hunt and conspiracy theories. OK, maybe I'm not surprised.

 

[dviss1]

Wishful thinking and nothing more.

I'm surprised you buy into the actual witch hunt and conspiracy theories. OK, maybe I'm not surprised.

I'm surprised at your vigorous defense of that human piece of garbage. I think that's more of a surprise. I think that you're smart enough to know the trouble that he's in. I'm very surprised that you're holding on to the thin thread that he's actually innocent. That's what's the most surprising to me.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm surprised at your vigorous defense of that human piece of garbage. I think that's more of a surprise. I think that you're smart enough to know the trouble that he's in. I'm very surprised that you're holding on to the thin thread that he's actually innocent. That's what's the most surprising to me.

I'm not defending HIM.

I just don't spew a bunch of hateful rhetoric about him.

He is innocent until proven guilty. That's how it works in America.

 

[dviss1]

He is innocent until proven guilty. That's how it works in America.

That's how it works for some. Others, no...

But in the court of public opinion, that's definitely not how it works in America.

 

[dviss1]

I'm not defending HIM.

I just don't spew a bunch of hateful rhetoric about him.

He is innocent until proven guilty. That's how it works in America.

The guy that you voted for called Trump a pussy.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I'm not defending HIM.

I just don't spew a bunch of hateful rhetoric about him.

He is innocent until proven guilty. That's how it works in America.

Unless we’re talking about Hillary Clinton. Right Denny???

 

[Denny Crane]

Unless we’re talking about Hillary Clinton. Right Denny???

Exactly.

The difference is one robbed the public for decades as a public servant and got away with it, and the other did not.

There actually was an illegal mail server in Hillary's case, for example. There are laws and specific statutes she violated in doing so. She repeatedly lied about it, changing her story as the facts refuted her earlier explanations.

"Trump is guilty" of what? Show me the equivalent of the email server or fired travel office workers (who were smeared through abuse of office). And cite the statutes and penalties for these supposed crimes.

I'm 100% open to actual evidence.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's how it works for some. Others, no...

But in the court of public opinion, that's definitely not how it works in America.

You are correct about the court of public opinion. But we don't allow lynchings based upon public opinion.

 

[Denny Crane]

The guy that you voted for called Trump a pussy.

I don't have a high opinion of the man (Trump).

He's sleazy at best.

He's not been a dishonest and corrupt politician all his life. He has that going for him.

 

[Chris Craig]

Manafort, papadopoulos, and Gates are on trial. Flynn and his son right behind them. Soon will come Kushner and Jr. One by one this swamp is being drained. And you can bet they are going to flip like pancakes. So, listen up Trumphuggers, President Pussygrabber is going down.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Exactly.

The difference is one robbed the public for decades as a public servant and got away with it, and the other did not.

There actually was an illegal mail server in Hillary's case, for example. There are laws and specific statutes she violated in doing so. She repeatedly lied about it, changing her story as the facts refuted her earlier explanations.

"Trump is guilty" of what? Show me the equivalent of the email server or fired travel office workers (who were smeared through abuse of office). And cite the statutes and penalties for these supposed crimes.

I'm 100% open to actual evidence.

So she’s been convicted in a court of law. Got it. Funny how your perceptions of Hillary are valid but the perceptions other folks have about Trump are not valid. Got that also. You “spew hateful hateful rhetoric” against HRC, but as with your take on Donny, she’s “innocent until proven guilty. That’s how it works in America.” Those are your words in quotes. As much as you would like it otherwise, you can’t have it both ways, regardless of what the “evidence” might show. I think she’s a crook, just as I believe Trump is a crook. But until a judge or a jury says otherwise, tough shit for the both of us.......

 

[MARIS61]

I'm surprised at your vigorous defense of that human piece of garbage. I think that's more of a surprise. I think that you're smart enough to know the trouble that he's in. I'm very surprised that you're holding on to the thin thread that he's actually innocent. That's what's the most surprising to me.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...rge-papadopoulos-indictment-exculpatory-trump

 

[SlyPokerDog]

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...rge-papadopoulos-indictment-exculpatory-trump

I trust all media to lie

 

[Denny Crane]

So she’s been convicted in a court of law. Got it. Funny how your perceptions of Hillary are valid but the perceptions other folks have about Trump are not valid. Got that also. You “spew hateful hateful rhetoric” against HRC, but as with your take on Donny, she’s “innocent until proven guilty. That’s how it works in America.” Those are your words in quotes. As much as you would like it otherwise, you can’t have it both ways, regardless of what the “evidence” might show. I think she’s a crook, just as I believe Trump is a crook. But until a judge or a jury says otherwise, tough shit for the both of us.......

The known indictment of Clinton wasn't pursued because the prosecutors determined they could not get a fair trial due to Clinton's office and fame. Seems like royalty to me.

I have actual reason to hate the woman. It's personal.

In spite of your complaints about my reasoning, you haven't refuted that she has committed crimes, the evidence is concrete and irrefutable (e.g. she fired travel office workers, she did order an illegal email server for her personal use). Again, there are actual criminal statutes she violated that can be named. I use only two of many examples, starting with her public life in the federal realm to the current time.

Good luck with pinning anything on Trump at this point. You have none of that. No criminal statute, no evidence of any direct involvement in any crime.

You say you can convict someone in the court of public opinion? Some peoples' burden of proof are non-existent. I'm not talking of my burden of proof.

 

[Chris Craig]

The known indictment of Clinton wasn't pursued because the prosecutors determined they could not get a fair trial due to Clinton's office and fame. Seems like royalty to me.

I have actual reason to hate the woman. It's personal.

In spite of your complaints about my reasoning, you haven't refuted that she has committed crimes, the evidence is concrete and irrefutable (e.g. she fired travel office workers, she did order an illegal email server for her personal use). Again, there are actual criminal statutes she violated that can be named. I use only two of many examples, starting with her public life in the federal realm to the current time.

Good luck with pinning anything on Trump at this point. You have none of that. No criminal statute, no evidence of any direct involvement in any crime.

You say you can convict someone in the court of public opinion? Some peoples' burden of proof are non-existent. I'm not talking of my burden of proof.

She used her private email server. Other secretaries of state used theirs before her. I don't see them being charged. There was no rule prior to this incident that said they couldn't. It was stupid of her to use her own server but certainly not illegal. She was investigated. No criminal act found. Cased closed. Move on.

Trump and his administration are being investigated. If they are found guilty then good.

 

[Denny Crane]

I want to again point out two things.

First, Manafort and Flynn and the others are charged with "crimes" that have nothing to do with Mueller's mandate (collusion with Russia). They were both fired by Trump after short periods of time. That's not encouraging any actions on their part.

Second, Papadopoulos was allegedly seeking Hillary's emails. You know, from the illegal server she ran. As far as we know, that server was never hacked. None of her emails were made public through any means other than FOIA - and even then, she destroyed half of the emails on her server, bit bleached the server's hard drive to erase any trace of the emails so they could not be recovered, smashed mobile devices that may have had the emails on them with hammers, etc. Clearly she had nothing to hide. The FBI did recover some of them and they proved she deleted emails of interest to federal investigators (destruction of evidence is a crime).

A third thing to point out is that Flynn may be indicted, but hasn't yet. I agree it's likely, but it's no 100% sure thing. Trump Jr. or Kushner? I see nothing they did that is a crime. Nothing reported, in the public record. Feel free to point out any statutes you think they can be charged with. Remember how Clinton got off - couldn't prove "intent." Factor that into your reasoning if you can.

 

[Denny Crane]

She used her private email server. Other secretaries of state used theirs before her. I don't see them being charged. There was no rule prior to this incident that said they couldn't. It was stupid of her to use her own server but certainly not illegal. She was investigated. No criminal act found. Cased closed. Move on.

Trump and his administration are being investigated. If they are found guilty then good.

You cannot spin her crime away. The other secretaries of state should be in equal trouble if they violated the laws.

Clinton's situation was different, though. Again, you cannot spin this away. She exclusively used a private server, after rules were put in place to disallow it, was told not to, and her lying explanations changed over time as her lies were revealed.

 

[barfo]

I have actual reason to hate the woman. It's personal.

It's quite obviously personal. That doesn't mean it's grounded in any sort of reality.

Maybe you should tell us what horrible thing Hillary did to you at this funeral?

Was it a funeral for one of her many murder victims? Did she tell you you were next on her list?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

It's quite obviously personal. That doesn't mean it's grounded in any sort of reality.

Maybe you should tell us what horrible thing Hillary did to you at this funeral?

Was it a funeral for one of her many murder victims? Did she tell you you were next on her list?

barfo

She did something horrible to the person whose funeral it was. Her history is littered with doing horrible things to people, though. See Billy Dale for one.

 

[barfo]

She did something horrible to the person whose funeral it was.

Before, or after the person was dead?

Did she have sex with the corpse, perhaps?

Remove some of the body parts and eat them?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Before, or after the person was dead?

Did she have sex with the corpse, perhaps?

Remove some of the body parts and eat them?

barfo

Before.

That's all I'm going to say. It's beyond dirty politics.

 

[barfo]

Before.

That's all I'm going to say. It's beyond dirty politics.

Then I'm going to have to call bullshit. "She's evil, but I can't say why!"

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Then I'm going to have to call bullshit. "She's evil, but I can't say why!"

barfo

It's not right to the person's family.

That's all there is to say.

Her husband gave the eulogy, and so did a few other prominent democrats and republicans.

 

[barfo]

It's not right to the person's family.

That's all there is to say.

Right... how many jars of your urine are you saving around the house?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Who is Billy Dale?

Billy Dale was the victim of one of Clinton's earliest major ethics controversies. He ran the white house travel office from 1982 to 1993.

Hillary fired the people who worked in the white house travel office a few months after her husband took office. She gave the travel business to relatives of the Clintons as well as friends and donors to the Clintons.

The thing is, the travel office serves at the president's pleasure. The administration could fire and reorganize the thing as they saw fit, without any ethical challenges. Though these sort of staffers usually server for years or decades and through the terms of multiple presidents of both parties.

Instead, she sought to prosecute Dale for supposedly embezzling $18K (which was investigated and proven not true earlier).

Ultimately the friends of Clintons were removed from the travel office programs, but the FBI was maliciously used to persecute and then prosecute Dale even after the firing. All this to cover up Hillary's unethical moves and abuse of her husband's office.

Dale was tried and found not guilty in 1995. (A similar thing happened to the guy who supposedly posted the youtube video that Clinton lied about in the Benghazi scandal).

Ken Starr sought notes taken by the administration officials and their lawyers regarding the firing, but was denied by the Supreme Court due to attorney client privilege. For lack of this evidence, Clinton would not be charged for her crimes by Starr.

Robert Ray, who worked out the plea deal with her husband resulting in Paula Jones getting paid $900K+, and his disbarment from the Supreme Court and his license suspended in Arkansas, could not prosecute because the evidence was sufficiently buried.

Ray cited eight separate conversations between the First Lady and senior staff and concluded: "Mrs. Clinton’s input into the process was significant, if not the significant factor influencing the pace of events in the Travel Office firings and the ultimate decision to fire the employees." Moreover, Ray determined Hillary Clinton had given "factually false" testimony[63] when questioned by the GAO, the Independent Counsel, and Congress[61]about the travel office firings, but reiterated that "the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that she knew her statements were false or understood that they may have prompted the firings.

A two-year-old memo from White House director of administration David Watkins surfaced that identified First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as the motivating force behind the firings, with the additional involvement of Vince Foster and Harry Thomason.[39] "Foster regularly informed me that the First Lady was concerned and desired action. The action desired was the firing of the Travel Office staff."[40] Written in fall 1993, apparently intended for McLarty, the Watkins memo also said "we both know that there would be hell to pay" if "we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes."[39] This memo contradicted the First Lady's previous statements in the GAO investigation, that she had played no role in the firings and had not consulted with Thomason beforehand; the White House also found it difficult to explain why the memo was so late in surfacing when all the previous investigations had requested all relevant materials.[40] House committee chair Clinger charged a cover-up was taking place and vowed to pursue new material.[39]

So she's innocent? NO.

 

[Denny Crane]

Right... how many jars of your urine are you saving around the house?

barfo

None, of course. I'd figure that's your thing.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I would just like to point out that someone has been complaining about the charges against Manafort are from acts from over 10 years ago (which is not accurate but whatever) while bringing up a case from 1993.

 

[MarAzul]

I would just like to point out that someone has been complaining about the charges against Manafort

And I would just like to question what sort of system do we have that we need a special counsil to investigate shit that happen 10 years ago about stuff that is not even hinted at in his appointment authorization?

Out of control, way out of control. Not the land of law, but the land where what ever shit happens as the deep state see fit.

 

[barfo]

And I would just like to question what sort of system do we have that we need a special counsil to investigate shit that happen 10 years ago about stuff that is not even hinted at in his appointment authorization?

Out of control, way out of control. Not the land of law, but the land where would ever shit happens as the deep state see fit.

So, you think Manafort should be allowed to get away with his crimes? Why?

barfo