OT Manafort and Stone Will Die in Prison

[Lanny]

That is all.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Pardon me if I don't shed any tears.

 

[julius]

Fake news!

 

[barfo]

Pardon me if I don't shed any tears.

If you want a pardon you'll need to talk to the president.

barfo

 

[Lanny]

If you want a pardon you'll need to talk to the president.

barfo

A Presidential pardon for an S2 crime is non negotiable. i.e. Null and void, a big fat null set, zero, nothingness, less than the term 'ether' which they use to describe outer space at Trump University. Take a particle and cleave it in half, now take half of that and do that an infinite number of times. The result is greater than the value of a Presidential pardon here in S2 land.

 

[BrianFromWA]

A Presidential pardon for an S2 crime is non negotiable. i.e. Null and void, a big fat null set, zero, nothingness, less than the term 'ether' which they use to describe outer space at Trump University. Take a particle and cleave it in half, now take half of that and do that an infinite number of times. The result is greater than the value of a Presidential pardon here in S2 land.

Bullshit. $50 and Sly would let BenDavis and PapaG back.

 

[Lanny]

Bullshit. $50 and Sly would let BenDavis and PapaG back.

Just try and pry a $50 dollar bill from Trump's tiny hand.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Serious question, because I haven't been following Mueller very closely (I'm very much in a "wake me when something happens that doesn't get laughed at--like subpeona-ing Russians who use that as a way to hack all the 'discovery-able' files" mode)...

I know lots of people are getting arrested, indicted, etc. I have no doubt that the President used/surrounded himself with people who I would colloquially call "pieces of lying shit". But has there been anything in all these arrests and indictments about the purpose of the case--namely, that Russia somehow turned an election that was going to be won by HRC into one that is won by Trump? I see tax fraud. I see evasion and lying to the FBI. Flynn's case is shady as hell ("we'll bury you in legal fees until you go bankrupt"). But has there been (or is there projected to be) anything that says "Manafort set up a metting where X,Y,Z happened and Russia was paid to turn the election?

Frankly, I'm more concerned with what I saw (and have seen) the FBI *admit to* (!?!) over the last couple of months than anything about shady political operatives. But I fully admit that I could be missing something...

 

[Lanny]

Serious question, because I haven't been following Mueller very closely (I'm very much in a "wake me when something happens that doesn't get laughed at--like subpeona-ing Russians who use that as a way to hack all the 'discovery-able' files" mode)...

I know lots of people are getting arrested, indicted, etc. I have no doubt that the President used/surrounded himself with people who I would colloquially call "pieces of lying shit". But has there been anything in all these arrests and indictments about the purpose of the case--namely, that Russia somehow turned an election that was going to be won by HRC into one that is won by Trump? I see tax fraud. I see evasion and lying to the FBI. Flynn's case is shady as hell ("we'll bury you in legal fees until you go bankrupt"). But has there been (or is there projected to be) anything that says "Manafort set up a metting where X,Y,Z happened and Russia was paid to turn the election?

Frankly, I'm more concerned with what I saw (and have seen) the FBI *admit to* (!?!) over the last couple of months than anything about shady political operatives. But I fully admit that I could be missing something...

Flynn lied repeatedly to the FBI.
You can't believe that the stolen Democratic e-mails didn't influence the election. Can you prove conclusively that they didn't change the outcome? Of course not, but you can say in all probability that they turned to results from Hillary to Trump.

And who do you think stole the e-mails? I think I know, I think I know.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Flynn lied repeatedly to the FBI.
You can't believe that the stolen Democratic e-mails didn't influence the election. Can you prove conclusively that they didn't change the outcome? Of course not, but you can say in all probability that they turned to results from Hillary to Trump.
And who do you think stole the e-mails? I think I know, I think I know.

I absolutely can believe that. I cannot say "in all probability" they turned the results, and I think that if Mueller could, we wouldn't be 2 years into a Trump presidency.
And which emails? The ones that were on an unsecured server in violation of multiple security regulations? Or the ones that were hacked by wikileaks and made public? Or the ones that Comey said were "gross negligence"? Or the ones that showed illegal activity by the DNC? Or...?

Put a different way...if there was some person's action that caused a nefarious other country to tip the election, wouldn't you be looking at that person? What the hell does Flynn or Manafort or Stone (or, frankly, Trump) have to do with Russia stealing emails that were stolen in JULY OF 2014!
I'll give you 5 guesses...who do you think stole the emails?

 

[jlprk]

Serious question, because I haven't been following Mueller very closely (I'm very much in a "wake me when something happens that doesn't get laughed at--like subpeona-ing Russians who use that as a way to hack all the 'discovery-able' files" mode)…

I know lots of people are getting arrested, indicted, etc. I have no doubt that the President used/surrounded himself with people who I would colloquially call "pieces of lying shit". But has there been anything in all these arrests and indictments about the purpose of the case--namely, that Russia somehow turned an election that was going to be won by HRC into one that is won by Trump? I see tax fraud. I see evasion and lying to the FBI. Flynn's case is shady as hell ("we'll bury you in legal fees until you go bankrupt"). But has there been (or is there projected to be) anything that says "Manafort set up a metting where X,Y,Z happened and Russia was paid to turn the election?

Frankly, I'm more concerned with what I saw (and have seen) the FBI *admit to* (!?!) over the last couple of months than anything about shady political operatives. But I fully admit that I could be missing something...

I agree. It's like getting Al Capone for not paying income tax, after they couldn't do so for anything else.

Or, Clinton's Whitewater investment turned out sterling, so they manipulated it into protecting his girlfriend. That's like pretending to investigate Russia connections, then putting Trump on the stand about Stormy Daniels.

This is how the evil legal system works. Overpaid lawyers use bullshit ancillary charges after the pretend charge, the one anyone cares about, turns out to be trivial or nonexistent.

The wars you fight are to violently install this "freedom" system into countries which want to do things their traditional ways.

 

[barfo]

I absolutely can believe that. I cannot say "in all probability" they turned the results, and I think that if Mueller could, we wouldn't be 2 years into a Trump presidency.

Whether or not the winner of the election was changed is unknowable and thus not the subject of the investigation.
Whether Americans conspired with foreigners in an attempt to influence the election results is the question at hand.

And which emails?

I suspect you know the answer to these questions, but I'll play along:

The ones that were on an unsecured server in violation of multiple security regulations?

There's never been any evidence that those were hacked.

Or the ones that were hacked by wikileaks and made public?

I believe you mean the ones that were hacked by russians and given to Wikileaks to make public?

Yes, those ones.

Or the ones that Comey said were "gross negligence"?

Aren't those the same ones as the first batch above? The ones that weren't hacked?

Or the ones that showed illegal activity by the DNC?

Illegal activity? But yes, DNC emails were part of the second batch above.

Put a different way...if there was some person's action that caused a nefarious other country to tip the election, wouldn't you be looking at that person? What the hell does Flynn or Manafort or Stone (or, frankly, Trump) have to do with Russia stealing emails that were stolen in JULY OF 2014!

July of 2014?? What emails are you talking about? Both the DNC and Podesta hacks were in the spring of 2016.

I'll give you 5 guesses...who do you think stole the emails?

Nobody, Russians, Nobody, Russians, and I don't know which emails you are talking about, respectively.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I know lots of people are getting arrested, indicted, etc. I have no doubt that the President used/surrounded himself with people who I would colloquially call "pieces of lying shit". But has there been anything in all these arrests and indictments about the purpose of the case--namely, that Russia somehow turned an election that was going to be won by HRC into one that is won by Trump?

That's not the purpose of the case, of course.

But yes, there are. A couple of dozen Russians have been indicted.

I see tax fraud. I see evasion and lying to the FBI. Flynn's case is shady as hell ("we'll bury you in legal fees until you go bankrupt").

Uh, what? What significant legal fees has he incurred? He pled guilty to one count and has been cooperating.

But has there been (or is there projected to be) anything that says "Manafort set up a metting where X,Y,Z happened and Russia was paid to turn the election?

Certainly the outlines of a conspiracy case are in view. Whether or not it will be brought, and who will be charged, if and when it is, is a matter of speculation.

Frankly, I'm more concerned with what I saw (and have seen) the FBI *admit to* (!?!) over the last couple of months than anything about shady political operatives. But I fully admit that I could be missing something...

If you haven't been following closely (reading all of the court filings) then you likely are missing a lot. But, even if you do read them all, the full answers to your questions are not yet visible.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Frankly, I'm more concerned with what I saw (and have seen) the FBI *admit to* (!?!) over the last couple of months than anything about shady political operatives

>>> Believe your instincts, they are and assest.

But I fully admit that I could be missing something...

>>> No, I think you have it. Not sure as many of them will go to jail as they should. But clean out at the FBI and Justice is due.

 

[MarAzul]

I think I know, I think I know.

Damn man! That is too bad.

 

[MarAzul]

in all probability that they turned to results from Hillary to Trump.

Lord! I just don't see how you could get more wrong than this though.

 

[Lanny]

I absolutely can believe that. I cannot say "in all probability" they turned the results, and I think that if Mueller could, we wouldn't be 2 years into a Trump presidency.
And which emails? The ones that were on an unsecured server in violation of multiple security regulations? Or the ones that were hacked by wikileaks and made public? Or the ones that Comey said were "gross negligence"? Or the ones that showed illegal activity by the DNC? Or...?

Put a different way...if there was some person's action that caused a nefarious other country to tip the election, wouldn't you be looking at that person? What the hell does Flynn or Manafort or Stone (or, frankly, Trump) have to do with Russia stealing emails that were stolen in JULY OF 2014!
I'll give you 5 guesses...who do you think stole the emails?

Russia stole the e-mails according to all of our security agencies. They then gave them to Wikileaks who colluded with Trump and his minions to sway the election. Putin and his team of hacks are known to have been celebrating the election and their part in it.
Mueller hasn't gone after Trump because he believes the Constitution gives no one the authority to convict a sitting President.

 

[Hoopguru]

I think a number of people will be going to jail for perjury and its going to be a refreshing form of bi-particianship[!
There's been a whole lot of lying going on and always has been but nowadays there is no margin for error regardless what side your on.
They will be both male and female too!

 

[crandc]

Thoughts and prayers

 

[jonnyboy]

Can you prove conclusively that they didn't change the outcome? Of course not, but you can say in all probability that they turned to results from Hillary to Trump.

“You can’t prove conclusively that Russia did or didn't influence the outcome of the election, so that means they did.”

-Someone on a basketball forum

 

[Lanny]

“You can’t prove conclusively that Russia did or didn't influence the outcome of the election, so that means they did.”

-Someone on a basketball forum

You can't prove conclusively but you sure can tell it was highly likely just as you can tell that it is highly likely that Trump will tell a lie.

 

[jonnyboy]

You can't prove conclusively but you sure can tell it was highly likely just as you can tell that it is highly likely that Trump will tell a lie.

You know to a high degree of certainty what thousands of people were thinking when they voted? Seems like you’re treating all those people as children who can’t think for themselves, and suggesting they all fell victim to internet memes not just swaying them a little one way, but making them vote the literal opposite of what they otherwise would have.

It is a bonkers claim.

 

[CupWizier]

You know to a high degree of certainty what thousands of people were thinking when they voted? Seems like you’re treating all those people as children who can’t think for themselves, and suggesting they all fell victim to internet memes not just swaying them a little one way, but making them vote the literal opposite of what they otherwise would have.

It is a bonkers claim.

Wrong johnny. If advertising is so useless then why do corporations spend billions doing it? Nobody knows what the numbers are but to think that the Russian advertising blitz had no effect is living in denial.

 

[jonnyboy]

Wrong johnny. If advertising is so useless then why do corporations spend billions doing it? Nobody knows what the numbers are but to think that the Russian advertising blitz had no effect is living in denial.

Why weren’t you swayed by the Russians? Too smart?

 

[CupWizier]

Why weren’t you swayed by the Russians? Too smart?

I knew Trump was the worst choice. It should have been obvious to most so obviously the ad blitz by the Russians had some effect.

 

[jonnyboy]

I knew Trump was the worst choice. It should have been obvious to most so obviously the ad blitz by the Russians had some effect.

Not the most compelling case you’ve laid out.

 

[Hoopguru]

I knew Trump was the worst choice. It should have been obvious to most so obviously the ad blitz by the Russians had some effect.

Cup, i didn't vote either Hillary or Trump but don't you think many people voted against Hillary rather for Trump? And having spent a lot of time in the mid west many of the Union Dems changed there usual democratic vote to Trump because their dislike for her. Im hoping we get a number of candidates representing three parties, the two party deal isn't ever going to work anymore imo. Many don't want that because its easier to control/lambast two then three.

 

[barfo]

Cup, i didn't vote either Hillary or Trump but don't you think many people voted against Hillary rather for Trump? And having spent a lot of time in the mid west many of the Union Dems changed there usual democratic vote to Trump because their dislike for her.

The Russians spent much more effort trying to get people to vote against Hillary than they did trying to get people to vote for Trump, so your observation is perfectly consistent with Cup's thesis.

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

The Russians spent much more effort trying to get people to vote against Hillary than they did trying to get people to vote for Trump, so your observation is perfectly consistent with Cup's thesis.

barfo

I don't know Barfo, I do think you are wrong on this as I personally know know multitudes more democrats than republicans in the mid west, Mfg employees and in some cases three generations in same plant of 5000 employees, and they would say you are insulting their intelligence by inferring Russians made them not vote for Hillary. These are hard core hang Old Glory from the rafters union employees that voted for Trump strictly because the democrats didn't have a candidate they liked. They would laugh at your assumptions that the Russians made them do it! I realize that you voted for Hillary but you should come to grips with the fact she wasn't the best candidate the democrats could have endorsed. Its to bad too.

 

[barfo]

I don't know Barfo, I do think you are wrong on this as I personally know know multitudes more democrats than republicans in the mid west, Mfg employees and in some cases three generations in same plant of 5000 employees, and they would say you are insulting their intelligence by inferring Russians made them not vote for Hillary. These are hard core hang Old Glory from the rafters union employees that voted for Trump strictly because the democrats didn't have a candidate they liked. They would laugh at your assumptions that the Russians made them do it! I realize that you voted for Hillary but you should come to grips with the fact she wasn't the best candidate the democrats could have endorsed. Its to bad too.

I think you misunderstood my post, or I misunderstood yours. I thought you were saying the Russkies didn't have an effect because people voted against Hillary rather than for Trump. I was saying that the Russkies wanted people to vote against Hillary (it's much easier to tear someone down than build someone up). So people voting against Hillary doesn't disprove Russian influence.

Whether or not they did have an effect at the ballot box is debatable, certainly, and it is not provable one way or another.

As to your current point, obviously no one is ever going to admit that they were influenced by Russian propaganda - in part because those who were (if there were any) are the least likely to ever know that they were. If there were any voters who were influenced, they'd be low-information voters who rely on facebook, S2, or other social media for their news.

barfo