And here we go... Mueller time

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You are reverting to stupid goatisms. Just give it up. The point is that ALL the stories about the SC have been leaked stories. As far as I know Mueller has issued no press releases about his work and has not had a press conference or a press availability. Taken together, Mueller's shop is the only logical source of the leaks.

Given Mueller's office's legal an professional ethical obligation to keep their traps shut, his office is like a sieve.

What stories? You mentioned one from the summer that claimed Mueller was looking at Trump's finances. Then there was the leak this weekend that an indictment had been returned. If a lawyer in Mueller's office leaked either of those, that's bad (and in the latter case, almost certainly unethical), but two leaks don't a sieve make.

 

[Bill4411]

What stories? You mentioned one from the summer that claimed Mueller was looking at Trump's finances. Then there was the leak this weekend that an indictment had been returned. If a lawyer in Mueller's office leaked either of those, that's bad (and in the latter case, almost certainly unethical), but two leaks don't a sieve make.

Let's not get lost in the weeds, as the charges were filed on Friday and we found out on Monday morning what the charges actually were..some leak.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

It's interesting that Fox News is focused on how these charges against Manafort and Gates is to try to block tax reform for the benefit of the middle class...

Never underestimate the gullibility of a regular Fox/republican media viewer.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What stories? You mentioned one from the summer that claimed Mueller was looking at Trump's finances. Then there was the leak this weekend that an indictment had been returned. If a lawyer in Mueller's office leaked either of those, that's bad (and in the latter case, almost certainly unethical), but two leaks don't a sieve make.

Another stupid goatism. Read any story about the SC from any news outlet--focus on the NYT, since that seems to be the favorite outlet for the leaker. Do you really think there have been only two stories? All the stories point to "un-named sources" or "sources close to the investigation" etc. In other words, the sources are leaks.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Another stupid goatism. Read any story about the SC from any news outlet--focus on the NYT, since that seems to be the favorite outlet for the leaker. Do you really think there have been only two stories? All the stories point to "un-named sources" or "sources close to the investigation" etc. In other words, the sources are leaks.

So, you got nothing.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Another stupid goatism. Read any story about the SC from any news outlet--focus on the NYT, since that seems to be the favorite outlet for the leaker. Do you really think there have been only two stories? All the stories point to "un-named sources" or "sources close to the investigation" etc. In other words, the sources are leaks.

You have said the leaks HURT the prosecution farther up in this thread, but you insist the only way all these happen is from the prosecution. I am sure some leaks have come from the prosecution, but to suggest more than that takes facts not entered into evidence. If something viewed as a leak can help the defense, why dismiss them as possible sources? Simply put, if 1000 people know what is going on, leaks are going to come from everywhere. By the time we get through all the attorneys, their administrative assistants, the targets, the marshalls, the Grand Jury, the judge, the judge's staff it may be that many people. Any prosecution leaks should be found and stopped.

 

[sglowrider]

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So, you got nothing.

Ha ha. Do you have a keyboard shortcut for this post? You post it often. All it tells me is that you have no argument other than "prove it" which is not an argument.

 

[sglowrider]

Meanwhile...

 

[37Hoosier]

You guys act like a Lynch mob.

I think it was your crowd who routinely like to chant "hang em", "lock em up", "shoot em"....that kind of stuff....and you guys are not acting, just demented.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Ha ha. Do you have a keyboard shortcut for this post? You post it often. All it tells me is that you have no argument other than "prove it" which is not an argument.

Are you a lawyer or not? If you can't prove it, then you are the one lacking an argument.

 

[Fro]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/despi...rtner-is-still-lurking-around-the-white-house

Gates was around for the whole campaign and worked as the liaison between Trump's campaign and the RNC after Manafort left. Also helped plan the inauguration.

Nothing in the indictment directly mentioning the campaign yet but when you add this to everything that's already been reported and the timeline it looks super shady.

Two people making millions of dollars from money-laundering from the Kremlin (the pro-Russian party in the Ukraine was basically an arm of Putin) running Trump's campaign, which just so happens to coincide with the Jr/Manafort/Kushner meeting, the DNC/clinton e-mail hacks, RNC changing their platform on Russia/Ukraine, etc.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Are you a lawyer or not? If you can't prove it, then you are the one lacking an argument.

Another goatism. I have shown it to a preponderance standard. You want certainty. That doesn't happen anywhere in the law.

You (like rock) are posting like an uninformed layman. I advise clients all the time that the law doesn't require them to be "right" in many of their decisions, they just have to be reasonable. I didn't think I needed to advise you of that. But you post as if you don't understand this point.

 

[Fro]

We have a possible flip.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1007336/download

Lied to FBI about "certain foreign nationals" relationship to senior Russian government officials.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

View embedded media

We have a possible flip.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1007336/download

Lied to FBI about "certain foreign nationals" relationship to senior Russian government officials.

This is a double whammy for Trump. This guy is going to get off easy (0-6 months, small fine). He's probably cooperating.

More: According to the plea, Papadopolous admits that he lied about trying to set up meetings with Russian agents while working for the campaign.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Another goatism. I have shown it to a preponderance standard. You want certainty. That doesn't happen anywhere in the law.

You (like rock) are posting like an uninformed layman. I advise clients all the time that the law doesn't require them to be "right" in many of their decisions, they just have to be reasonable. I didn't think I needed to advise you of that. But you post as if you don't understand this point.

You can't even provide the necessary facts to justify your claim, much less meet any evidentiary standard. "Look it up yourself" is not evidence.

 

[Fro]

Wow, that's a bad indictment for Trump (link to the actual case below)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/george-papadopoulos-pleads-guilty-lying-to-fbi

Edit: Direct link https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Wow, that's a bad indictment for Trump (link to the actual case below)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/george-papadopoulos-pleads-guilty-lying-to-fbi

I refuse to believe someone associated with Trump would lie about anything. Fake news.

 

[twenty02]

Meanwhile...

View embedded media

View embedded media

What do you expect? That channel (outside of Baier's show) is programming for morons, by morons.

Boehnor mentioned in the Politico piece that Roger Ailes had gone full conspiracy theorist / black helicopters in his final years there, when he met with him. He thought the guy was insane.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You can't even provide the necessary facts to justify your claim, much less meet any evidentiary standard. "Look it up yourself" is not evidence.

Isn't about time for you to "exit this conversation" like you often post when you have no argument and as you did once before in this thread?

 

[RBB89]

Isn't about time for you to "exit this conversation" like you often post when you have no argument and as you did once before in this thread?

You brought it up. You said there were a bunch of leaks. Don’t get all pissed when people ask you to specify that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Isn't about time for you to "exit this conversation" like you often post when you have no argument and as you did once before in this thread?

Good idea. Your first in this thread.

 

[Rockfish1]

Another goatism. I have shown it to a preponderance standard. You want certainty. That doesn't happen anywhere in the law.

You (like rock) are posting like an uninformed layman. I advise clients all the time that the law doesn't require them to be "right" in many of their decisions, they just have to be reasonable. I didn't think I needed to advise you of that. But you post as if you don't understand this point.

You have a preponderance of no evidence.

 

[Fro]

That's pretty close to a smoking gun there.

 

[T.M.P.]

You are reverting to stupid goatisms. Just give it up. The point is that ALL the stories about the SC have been leaked stories. As far as I know Mueller has issued no press releases about his work and has not had a press conference or a press availability. Taken together, Mueller's shop is the only logical source of the leaks.

Given Mueller's office's legal an professional ethical obligation to keep their traps shut, his office is like a sieve.

lol ..............

 

[zeke4ahs]

Is Lucy on suicide watch this morning?

 

[iuwclurker1]

Me? I look at the most logical and reasonable explanation.

That's hilarious. You say that the Mueller team leaking hurts their case and then you draw the most logical and reasonable conclusion that the Mueller team is doing the leaking.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Is Lucy on suicide watch this morning?

Do bots commit suicide?

 

[Stuffshot]

This isn't hard to figure out. The information about the special counsel's office has been pretty much non-stop since Mueller took the job. If you think there will be somebody in that office stand up and say "I am providing information to the press" think again. My conclusion that it MUST be the SC's is solely based on the nature information--there is no other source that is privy to all of it.

Goat and Marv put out arguments about the defense counsel, or marshal's service leaking stuff. That's tin-foil hat territory. When one considers ALL the information, the SC office is the only logical an reasonable source.

If an attorney is providing the leaks, I think that attorney needs to have his or her chops busted big time. As I said, this crap jeopardizes the prosecution's case, it is unprofessional, and frankly it is shabby bs. If the person is identified as an attorney, Mueller needs to report the matter to the federal court committee on conduct and to what ever state issued the license.

No, there are lots of potential sources other than the special counsel's office.

The families of the targets would also have known this was coming. Family members may have told other family members and family employees who were needed to make their defendant transition (drivers, secretaries, personal accountants etc.) It's very possible that family members of the targets talked about the revelations of this past weekend (but maybe not the earlier stuff).

Also, there was apparently an actual guilty plea by a third defendant a couple weeks ago. He and his affiliates are also in a position to have leaked things.

Also, there are several Congressional investigations proceeding right now. Anyone think Congress members don't leak stuff?

And, of course, Deep Throat himself was an FBI agent, so the leaks could have come from FBI personnel too.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's hilarious. You say that the Mueller team leaking hurts their case and then you draw the most logical and reasonable conclusion that the Mueller team is doing the leaking.

Happens all the time clurk. The compulsion of attorneys to damage their targets in unprofessional ways is more common than we'd like to think.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Happens all the time clurk. The compulsion of attorneys to damage their targets in unprofessional ways is more common than we'd like to think.

Idiots do it, so your intelligent conclusion is that Mueller's team did it. You skipped your unspoken assertion that Mueller's team has one or more idiots on it.

Who's the idiot on Mueller's team? You would know if you're using that as a data point.

 

[stollcpa]

Trump on a twitter rant this morning. He's feeling the heat. Back to Judge Jeanine, evidently she was planning to run against Hillary in NY when her husband went to jail for tax fraud. So she's familiar with locking up.

So Trump’s feeling heat of money laundering from Manafort years ago? Should Hillary feel heat too? Tony Podesta just stepped down from Podesta Group. Under investigation by SC. Hmmmm, I know, I know, that’s irrelevant news.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I am not a robot!

Good recognition. Were you programmed to distinguish between a robot and a bot?

 

[iuwclurker1]

So Trump’s feeling heat of money laundering from Manafort years ago? Should Hillary feel heat too? Tony Podesta just stepped down from Podesta Group. Under investigation by SC. Hmmmm, I know, I know, that’s irrelevant news.

I would sooooo take a twofer. Only one thing funnier to watch than Aloha kissing a picture of Hillary would be Trump having Hillary in the next cell over.

 

[twenty02]

Does the news today qualify as a nothingburger?



Asking for a friend.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Does the news today qualify as a nothingburger?

Hate to wax philosophical but what's the line between nothing and something?

 

[iuwclurker1]

Yuk it up now, None of this will be tied to Trump.

Trump is going down like the Hindenburg. Fitting end for a blimp.

 

[twenty02]

You don’t have any friends.

You are a bit testy today.

 

[zeke4ahs]

This press conference. Lol.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So Trump’s feeling heat of money laundering from Manafort years ago? Should Hillary feel heat too? Tony Podesta just stepped down from Podesta Group. Under investigation by SC. Hmmmm, I know, I know, that’s irrelevant news.

Five bucks says you won't find a single liberal here who gives three shits if Tony Podesta goes to prison. So, yeah, pretty irrelevant.

Well, except for the fact that every imprisoned lobbyist makes the world a little better place. So that's always a positive.