|
|
Post by palealeman on May 9, 2018 10:20:26 GMT -5
Interesting, RJ. You link to a completely biased article in the Federalist -- the bias starts in the first line of the headline and continues through the article -- but don't mention that the article details many contacts between Manafort and Russians . . . which is which is alleged. Want to try again? Of course, you continue to read extremely conservative articles through unfiltered unthinking partisan eyes, so what else would we expect?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on May 9, 2018 10:38:20 GMT -5
Interesting, RJ. You link to a completely biased article in the Federalist -- the bias starts in the first line of the headline and continues through the article -- but don't mention that the article details many contacts between Manafort and Russians . . . which is which is alleged. Want to try again? Of course, you continue to read extremely conservative articles through unfiltered unthinking partisan eyes, so what else would we expect? Again, you've missed the point. It is true the article lists examples of alleged connections between Manifort and the Russians. But are those allegations accurate? If Mueller won't provide evidence that they are, either the stories are fabricated, or Mueller doesn't think they're relevant to his case. Failing to provide his evidence to the defense will preclude him from using them in court. If the stories are fabricated, Manifort is going to live a very sumptuous life when all this is over and his slander cases are settled. If the stories are not relevant to Mueller's case, Mueller has exceeded the Russian Collusion mandate that he was authorized to pursue. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 11, 2018 9:46:12 GMT -5
Interesting, RJ. You link to a completely biased article in the Federalist -- the bias starts in the first line of the headline and continues through the article -- but don't mention that the article details many contacts between Manafort and Russians . . . which is which is alleged. Want to try again? Of course, you continue to read extremely conservative articles through unfiltered unthinking partisan eyes, so what else would we expect? Where is Mueller's investigation of The Felon and her crime syndicate? There is far more evidence, hard, unimpeachable evidence, of her colluding with Russia than anything he's found with Trump, even after the illegal wiretapping. Not to mention that Manafort had business interests in Russia. Of course he spoke with Russians. So what? Did he pay them to make up a scurrilous "dossier" to damage his opponents? Did he give said "dossier" to the FBI to use as an excuse to spy on her? Did he use said "dossier" to force a Special Counsel to "investigate" the lies in said "dossier"? No? The Felon did all that and more. So, where is his investigation of her? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 11, 2018 9:47:20 GMT -5
Interesting, RJ. You link to a completely biased article in the Federalist -- the bias starts in the first line of the headline and continues through the article -- but don't mention that the article details many contacts between Manafort and Russians . . . which is which is alleged. Want to try again? Of course, you continue to read extremely conservative articles through unfiltered unthinking partisan eyes, so what else would we expect? Again, you've missed the point. It is true the article lists examples of alleged connections between Manifort and the Russians. But are those allegations accurate? If Mueller won't provide evidence that they are, either the stories are fabricated, or Mueller doesn't think they're relevant to his case. Failing to provide his evidence to the defense will preclude him from using them in court. If the stories are fabricated, Manifort is going to live a very sumptuous life when all this is over and his slander cases are settled. If the stories are not relevant to Mueller's case, Mueller has exceeded the Russian Collusion mandate that he was authorized to pursue. Not to mention that all those allegations were investigated in 2007, and found to be without merit. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on May 11, 2018 21:17:16 GMT -5
Except investigating allegations in 2007 would not cover the allegations in 2014 - 2016. That's more or less common sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 15, 2018 8:56:07 GMT -5
Except investigating allegations in 2007 would not cover the allegations in 2014 - 2016. That's more or less common sense. The allegations in 2014-2016 are the same ones investigated in 2007. Mueller is so corrupt and incompetent that he even 'indicted' a Russian company that didn't exist at the time of the alleged transgressions. He's also facing prosecution of his own, because a Federal judge has now ordered him to turn over all the evidence he has of any Russian "collusion". That means he's going to be exposed as the fraud, and extortionist that he really is. |
|
