Mueller WILL NOT Present Collusion Evidence At Manafort Trial

[Oceander]

No, that shows that before there was an elected president who wasn't Hillary Clinton, the DOJ did not feel the need to go after someone who would end up working very briefly on the campaign of the person who beat Clinton.  There are a number of people the DOJ could have gone after and chose not to, Manafort and Podesta included.  Not sure how you see that as anything BUT politics.  Well, and corruption.

The only corruption here is on the part of Manafort. 

[Sanguine]

The only corruption here is on the part of Manafort.

Keep clicking those ruby slippers together. 

[edpc]

Why wasn't Mueller prosecuted in 2014?

As I previously said, the Holder-led DOJ was after Yanukovych. 

I guess we won't find out until we see what was on the FISA warrant that supposedly prompted Mueller to re-open his case in 2016.

I'm supposing you'd mean Comey.  Mueller left the FBI in 2013 and was in the private sector through the election.  How would anyone foresee Manafort would be campaign manager two years later?  Knowing he'd previously been involved with Russian figures, why wouldn't that trigger legitimate suspicion once he got involved?  Add the previously investigated Carter Page and it practically demands scrutiny.

[edpc]

No, that shows that before there was an elected president who wasn't Hillary Clinton, the DOJ did not feel the need to go after someone who would end up working very briefly on the campaign of the person who beat Clinton.  There are a number of people the DOJ could have gone after and chose not to, Manafort and Podesta included.  Not sure how you see that as anything BUT politics.  Well, and corruption.

And like I said, knowing he was on FBI radar, Manafort went right back to the well at his first opportunity.  He's either really corrupt or extremely stupid.  Perhaps both.

[Oceander]

Keep clicking those ruby slippers together. 

A politically-motivated prosecution is only corrupt if there is no basis for the prosecution. The mere fact that the prosecutor has a political point of view does not taint all of his or her prosecutions; if it did, then no prosecutor could ever prosecute someone with a different political viewpoint, no matter what the evidence showed. 

Manafort almost certainly committed tax evasion and bank fraud, and now witness tampering, and no amount of sugar-coating or character assassination of Mueller will make that go away.

[skeeter]

As I previously said, the Holder-led DOJ was after Yanukovych. 



I'm supposing you'd mean Comey.  Mueller left the FBI in 2013 and was in the private sector through the election.  How would anyone foresee Manafort would be campaign manager two years later?  Knowing he'd previously been involved with Russian figures, why wouldn't that trigger legitimate suspicion once he got involved?  Add the previously investigated Carter Page and it practically demands scrutiny.

Manafort was subject to counter intelligence surveillance both before and after the election. Details were provided to Mueller's team, which, I assume, have led to his prosecution.

In hindsight, and in the context of the media narrative, sure it demands scrutiny.

But in reality there is no proof election collusion with Trump's team & Russia existed.  So what the hell are we talking about?

[Oceander]

Manafort was subject to counter intelligence surveillance both before and after the election. Details were provided to Mueller's team, which, I assume, have led to his prosecution.

In hindsight, and in the context of the media narrative, sure it demands scrutiny.

But in reality there is no proof collusion existed.

It would appear that this is a distinct possibility.  Which is why Mueller should be allowed to prosecute the actual criminal he found and go on his merry way. 

[skeeter]

It would appear that this is a distinct possibility.  Which is why Mueller should be allowed to prosecute the actual criminal he found and go on his merry way.

I have no brief for Manafort. A court will determined whether his consulting work was done in the US and is subject to US tax law or not.

I'm just concerned about equal justice, punishment fitting the crime, or alleged crime, etc. I also have a problem with prosecutions made with an eye on their political effect.

[edpc]

Manafort was subject to counter intelligence surveillance both before and after the election. Details were provided to Mueller's team, which, I assume, have led to his prosecution.

In hindsight, and in the context of the media narrative, sure it demands scrutiny.

But in reality there is no proof election collusion with Trump's team & Russia existed.  So what the hell are we talking about?

We're talking about an investigation into contacts people associated with the Trump campaign had with Russians.  That's the verbiage of the Rosenstein memo, assigning the SC.  Collusion isn't mentioned.  Much of, if not all, is a self-induced debacle by the campaign.  In June, they had the meeting at Trump Tower.  By the time the convention rolled around, they were getting briefings from the FBI, warning them foreigners may try to contact them.  Did they say, "Hey, yeah, this crazy Russian lawyer said she had info on Hillary, then tried to convince us to change Maginsky."....?  No, they hid it, because it was politically embarrassing and potentially damaging.  That faux pas, along with Cambridge Analytica, Wikileaks, and other things contributed to this mess.  Trey 'hurry the hell up' Gowdy even said it was a problem this past February.


REP. GOWDY: No-- not to me, it doesn't -- and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it. There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/05/gowdy_there_is_a_russia_investigation_without_a_dossier.html

[Oceander]

I have no brief for Manafort. A court will determined whether his consulting work was done in the US and is subject to US tax law or not.

I'm just concerned about equal justice, punishment fitting the crime, or alleged crime, etc. I also have a problem with prosecutions made with an eye on their political effect.

Then so far you should have nothing to be concerned about.  He was properly indicted by a grand jury, the probable cause underlying the charges appears to have been vetted, and Mr. Manafort is on track to be tried in the normal course, just like anyone else charged with similar crimes. 

The biggest difference here is that he ended up having bail revoked and is now back in prison.  But that is his fault, not Mueller’s, because he attempted to tamper with witnesses.  He isn’t in jail now as special political punishment, he’s in jail because he violated the terms of his bail. 

And quite honestly, there would be more cause for concern if Mueller had said he was going to introduce evidence of collusion, because that would be nothing more than bad character evidence since it has no relevance to the crimes charged.  Thus, Mueller’s statement, if anything, indicates that the prosecution is not politically motivated, rather than the contrary.

[skeeter]

We're talking about an investigation into contacts people associated with the Trump campaign had with Russians.  That's the verbiage of the Rosenstein memo, assigning the SC.  Collusion isn't mentioned.  Much of, if not all, is a self-induced debacle by the campaign.  In June, they had the meeting at Trump Tower.  By the time the convention rolled around, they were getting briefings from the FBI, warning them foreigners may try to contact them.  Did they say, "Hey, yeah, this crazy Russian lawyer said she had info on Hillary, then tried to convince us to change Maginsky."....?  No, they hid it, because it was politically embarrassing and potentially damaging.  That faux pas, along with Cambridge Analytica, Wikileaks, and other things contributed to this mess.  Trey 'hurry the hell up' Gowdy even said it was a problem this past February.


REP. GOWDY: No-- not to me, it doesn't -- and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it. There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/05/gowdy_there_is_a_russia_investigation_without_a_dossier.html

I wonder what all this would look like if we also knew, in detail, what points of contact the campaign and president elect's team had with the

British
Chinese
Germans
Iraqis
Italians
Indians
Yemenis
etc etc

Pick one and with the right storyline, even without the covert efforts to promote it by the leadership of the FBI, and repeated incessantly it can be made to look nefarious. Of course the Russians make it look easy as they've been effing around in US elections since 1919.

[Cyber Liberty]

I didn't think this trial was about the "Russian Collusion," it's about Manafort's ancient crimes.  I don't even know if the witness tampering is part of it.

Why would Mueller's team even bring collusion into this trial anyway?  As much as we may like to put Mueller on trial here, it's not the place or time.  I hope eventually that happens, because I think Mueller and his team are dirty, but it's not going to happen here.  It's not relevant to this case.

[edpc]

I wonder what all this would look like if we also knew, in detail, what points of contact the campaign and president elect's team had with the

British
Chinese
Germans
Iraqis
Italians
Indians
Yemenis
etc etc

Pick one and with the right storyline, even without the covert efforts to promote it by the leadership of the FBI, and repeated incessantly it can be made to look nefarious. Of course the Russians make it look easy as they've been effing around in US elections since 1919.

Except the storyline wasn't chosen. It is what it is, because of ill-advised actions.  Any individuals, from any country, with direct ties to intel services and their government offering politically damaging information is going to want something in return. I would think that bears a look, whether information was obtained or not.

[Oceander]

I didn't think this trial was about the "Russian Collusion," it's about Manafort's ancient crimes.  I don't even know if the witness tampering is part of it.

Why would Mueller's team even bring collusion into this trial anyway?  As much as we may like to put Mueller on trial here, it's not the place or time.  I hope eventually that happens, because I think Mueller and his team are dirty, but it's not going to happen here.  It's not relevant to this case.

On that we can generally agree. 

[skeeter]

Except the storyline wasn't chosen. It is what it is, because of ill-advised actions.  Any individuals, from any country, with direct ties to intel services and their government offering politically damaging information is going to want something in return. I would think that bears a look, whether information was obtained or not.

Sure it was. It started out as oppo research before trump was even the presumptive nominee.

[edpc]

Sure it was. It started out as oppo research before trump was even the presumptive nominee.

I'm referring to the tower meeting, which has zero to do with the dossier.

[skeeter]

I'm referring to the tower meeting, which has zero to do with the dossier.

The only reason the tower meeting has any significance at all is because the Russia narrative by that time was established by Trumps political opposition. It certainly wasn't illegal.

[edpc]

The only reason the tower meeting has any significance at all is because the Russia narrative by that time was established by Trumps political opposition. It certainly wasn't illegal.

All the more reason it was foolish to take the meeting, hide it later, and lie about the president's role in the statement.  It's usually the stuff that happens after the incident that gets you in trouble.