Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said: Yes. Keep that in mind when you hear that Manafort's indictment is evidence of Russia collusion. (like Rep. Jackson-Lee just said in the Strzok hearing)It's not a statement, Paul. It's a response to a motion.
Prediction: Mueller's statement cited above:
The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian governmentwill never be reported by the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC or any other Russiagate media.
It's a statement within a response to a motion.
It's a response to a motion regarding the charges Manafort is facing. You can list a whole host of things it doesn't include if that makes you feel good.
dave23 said:
It's a response to a motion regarding the charges Manafort is facing. You can list a whole host of things it doesn't include if that makes you feel good.
I'll stick with Russia collusion.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:I'll stick with Russia collusion.
It's a response to a motion regarding the charges Manafort is facing. You can list a whole host of things it doesn't include if that makes you feel good.
Make sure to stick Russian collusion into other investigations to prove it's not real.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Make sure to stick Russian collusion into other investigations to prove it's not real.
dave23 said:I'll stick with Russia collusion.
It's a response to a motion regarding the charges Manafort is facing. You can list a whole host of things it doesn't include if that makes you feel good.
I'll let you do that.
paulsurovell said:
Thanks for doing this, Jamie. I'll update the thread in the coming days.
A good start would be Mueller's admission that in the Manafort trial:
"The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government" (p.4)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4580876-USA-v-Manafort-Opposition-to-Motions-in-Limine.html
The evidence at trial has to be relevant to the case. The case is about whatever is in the indictment. The indictment was for money laundering and tax evasion.
Just because irrelevant facts aren't going to be presented, doesn't mean they don't exist. It would be stupid to claim that there's no collusion based on that statement.
[Edited to add] And by the way, this started with Manafort making a motion to exclude from the trial "evidence or argument concerning the defendant's or the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign's alleged collusion with the Russian Government (as well as the defendant's work for the Trump campaign". The government responded that it did not oppose with respect to the issue of collusion. That's not an "admission", that's a statement of what is going to be presented in the case (which as noted, is about the indictment).
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:The evidence at trial has to be relevant to the case. The case is about whatever is in the indictment. The indictment was for money laundering and tax evasion.
Thanks for doing this, Jamie. I'll update the thread in the coming days.
A good start would be Mueller's admission that in the Manafort trial:
"The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government" (p.4)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4580876-USA-v-Manafort-Opposition-to-Motions-in-Limine.html
Just because irrelevant facts aren't going to be presented, doesn't mean they don't exist. It would be stupid to claim that there's no collusion based on that statement.
[Edited to add] And by the way, this started with Manafort making a motion to exclude from the trial "evidence or argument concerning the defendant's or the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign's alleged collusion with the Russian Government (as well as the defendant's work for the Trump campaign". The government responded that it did not oppose with respect to the issue of collusion. That's not an "admission", that's a statement of what is going to be presented in the case (which as noted, is about the indictment).
Trump-Russia collusion proponents regularly cite the Manafort indictment as proof of the legitimacy of Mueller's investigation of Trump-Russia collusion. But as you point out, and Mueller's statement confirms, the Manafort indictment has nothing to do with Trump-Russia collusion.
paulsurovell said:
Trump-Russia collusion proponents regularly cite the Manafort indictment as proof of the legitimacy of Mueller's investigation of Trump-Russia collusion. But as you point out, and Mueller's statement confirms, the Manafort indictment has nothing to do with Trump-Russia collusion.
Whatever you have in mind with your comment, the fact remains that indictments have been issued, so they're not sitting around making paper airplanes. Your side is looking for all sorts of ways to turn public opinion against the investigation, and this is just another attempt.
I watched Rudy, Trumps spokesmodel, on Fox last night, and he was conflating the Manafort case with the Steele dossier, as he ranted that the Russian investigation never should have started and Manafort should file a motion to dismiss based on that.
paulsurovell said:
Thanks for doing this, Jamie. I'll update the thread in the coming days.
A good start would be Mueller's admission that in the Manafort trial:
"The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government" (p.4)
I believe you’ve cited Andrew McCarthy before as a credible source:
Mueller Will Not Present ‘Collusion’ Evidence at Manafort’s Fraud Trial; But That Doesn’t Mean He Has No Such Evidence (National Review)
An excerpt:
It may well be that Mueller does not have a prosecutable collusion case (indeed, we have long surmised as much). But that is not a conclusion that can sensibly be drawn from the unremarkable fact that the special counsel does not plan to prove collusion in the imminent Manafort trial. Because collusion evidence would not be germane to the fraud allegations that the jury will be asked to decide, there would be no reason to introduce such evidence, if it exists.
Moreover, if Mueller were to have made collusion with Russia part of his case against Manafort, due-process rules would have required him to provide the defense with extensive discovery of his investigative files on that topic.
In other contexts, both Mueller’s prosecutors and the Justice Department have taken the position that they will not discuss the posture of Mueller’s investigation, or even the factual basis for believing there are crimes to be investigated (which, by regulation, is supposed to be established as a condition of appointing a special prosecutor). To do so, they have asserted, would compromise their ability to conduct the investigation effectively.
Having taken that position, the special counsel obviously would not raise the issue of collusion in Manafort’s trial. Otherwise, he would have to lay his cards on the table. Indeed, he would lose control of his cards: Once an issue is deemed relevant to the merits of a criminal trial, it is up to the presiding judge to determine what information the prosecutor must disclose — and that is invariably more information than the prosecutor wishes to disclose.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:I believe you’ve cited Andrew McCarthy before as a credible source:
Thanks for doing this, Jamie. I'll update the thread in the coming days.
A good start would be Mueller's admission that in the Manafort trial:
"The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government" (p.4)
Mueller Will Not Present ‘Collusion’ Evidence at Manafort’s Fraud Trial; But That Doesn’t Mean He Has No Such Evidence (National Review)
An excerpt: { . . . ]
Here's the practical conclusion of a useful discussion by McCarthy, linked in your excerpt:
Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
paulsurovell said:
Here's the practical conclusion of a useful discussion by McCarthy, linked in your excerpt:
Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
That may be. His point about the motion remains intact.
The "if it were a thing then it would be a bigger thing by now" is not an argument with any merit. These things take a lot of time. (Which is not to say that I'm convinced of "collusion" having taken place.)
Speaking of investigations taking time...
Rosenstein announced that 12 Russians were charged in DNC hack.
dave23 said:
Well, at least one American is probably in trouble.
A whole bunch of reporters also cited.
But before passing judgment on this indictment, it's important to recall what happened the last time Mueller indicted a bunch of Russians.
Update 2:
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:A whole bunch of reporters also cited.
Well, at least one American is probably in trouble.
But before passing judgment on this indictment, it's important to recall what happened the last time Mueller indicted a bunch of Russians.
Update 2:
https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/muellers-attempt-to-hide-evidence-just-got-torn-apart-by-attorneys-for-alleged-russian-troll-farm/amp/
Yes, those indicted fought back, calling him "unlawfully appointed." Putin didn't approve!
Update 3:
Dubelier also asserted that with Concord Catering, U.S. authorities had indicted the “proverbial ham sandwich,” charging a company that he said did not formally exist at the time the government alleged it was active.
paulsurovell said:
Update 3:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/indicted-russian-firm-tied-to-putins-chef-internet-research-agency-set-to-plead-not-guilty-in-us-court/2018/05/09/17e2f5ce-5304-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.35fb4f94f5a3
Dubelier also asserted that with Concord Catering, U.S. authorities had indicted the “proverbial ham sandwich,” charging a company that he said did not formally exist at the time the government alleged it was active.
I can't believe the Collusion Media aren't covering a Not Guilty plea.
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:Here's the practical conclusion of a useful discussion by McCarthy, linked in your excerpt:
paulsurovell said:I believe you’ve cited Andrew McCarthy before as a credible source:
Thanks for doing this, Jamie. I'll update the thread in the coming days.
A good start would be Mueller's admission that in the Manafort trial:
"The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government" (p.4)
Mueller Will Not Present ‘Collusion’ Evidence at Manafort’s Fraud Trial; But That Doesn’t Mean He Has No Such Evidence (National Review)
An excerpt: { . . . ]
Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment/
Two thoughts -
1. McCarthy is incorrect. Just because they went forward with the non-collusion charges, doesn't mean that potential collusion charges don't exist.
2. An unfortunate time stamp on that post (12:20 pm) in light of all the action going down shortly after that regarding indictments.
nohero said:2. An unfortunate time stamp on that post (12:20 pm) in light of all the action going down shortly after that regarding indictments.
Nothing unfortunate, no indictments on Trump-Russia collusion.
Update 4:
A clue on how Mueller is likely to handle evidence in latest indictment:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Nothing unfortunate, no indictments on Trump-Russia collusion.
2. An unfortunate time stamp on that post (12:20 pm) in light of all the action going down shortly after that regarding indictments.
You're a logical guy, you can see this is a next step, if a collusion case is in the works, vs. the claim "Mueller has no collusion case."
Roger Stone tells CNN he does not believe he is the unnamed person in the indictment: “My contact with the campaign in 2016 was Donald Trump. I was not in regular contact with campaign officials.”
Oops.
Great interview with Michael Isikoff on the "evidence" in Mueller's latest indictment:
https://therealnews.com/stories/has-mueller-caught-the-hackers
A thread has already been started on the latest indictments:
Technical challenges to Mueller's indictment:
paulsurovell said:
Technical challenges to Mueller's indictment:
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/07/muellers-latest-indictment-ignores-evidence-in-the-public-domain/
A long, technically dense article tweeted at 8:33 a.m. and linked here barely an hour later. You read, understood and held to account that critique much faster than I could have, Paul. What was your take on it?
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:A long, technically dense article tweeted at 8:33 a.m. and linked here barely an hour later. You read, understood and held to account that critique much faster than I could have, Paul. What was your take on it?
Technical challenges to Mueller's indictment:
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/07/muellers-latest-indictment-ignores-evidence-in-the-public-domain/
My take is that it deserves to be considered by anyone who purports to be searching for the truth, which is why I posted it. I'm deferring judgment for now.
What was your take on the Isikoff interview?
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
It's not a statement, Paul. It's a response to a motion.