Manafort Charged by FBI

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I have to disagree with the New York Times.

"B-Movie plot line" is far too generous; this ridiculous dumb-show is pure third-rate Reality TV.

May I add...DJT's (most likely) treasonous activity against the United States as well.

"If Trump survives this crisis --- which may mean that American democracy doesn't --- tax cuts will have a lot to do with it."

quote: Paul Krugman - "Trump Won't Bring Joy to Moolaville" - NYT's OP-ED Tuesday, October 31, 2017

www.nytimes.com...

Traitors are those who lie and support the lies which are tearing down our governmental infrastructure for no other reason than political advantage. There are traitors of every political stripe. Their calling card is constant lies and promulgation of lies.

a reply to: Erno86

Trump has been so generally ineffective in everything he has done (due to declining health) it would be hard to accuse him of being a traitor.

That said, there are likely plenty around him that qualify.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Traitors are those who lie and support the lies which are tearing down our governmental infrastructure for no other reason than political advantage. There are traitors of every political stripe. Their calling card is constant lies and promulgation of lies.

Dont be so hard on yourself.

Liars and traitors start multiple threads on the same topics, strategically in line with wider efforts in certain media to maintain and control certain narratives.

Liars and traitors have been shown time after time to regularly spam fallacious arguments, and as soon as one line of illogical nonsense has been debunked, they jump to another thread.

The indictment against Paul Manafort on twelve charges is only the beginning of Special Counsel Mueller's work. Liars and traitors know this and are doing everything they can to subvert and divide the American people and tear down our confidence in our legal system and agencies even further than it already has been.

Ask yourself the critical question WHY??? ... six months ago Bob Mueller was appointed with full-knowledge of his associations and history. Republicans at all levels (including shills like Hannity in the media) praised his abilities and integrity. Yet, when the indictments start coming, when it is made clear that, indeed, there are serious questions about the 2016 Presidential Election ... suddenly, Mueller is a traitor, the FBI can't be trusted, the legal system is a joke ...

This is an intentional targeting of our institutions and national integrity. Even if it is merely being done for political "gain" ... it is overt and open treason against the United States of America.

These people and their lies must be resisted at all costs if our Republic is to survive. This is a turning point in our history.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Please seek help for your extremism.

You have been shown to have lied multiple times. You have intentionally ignored parts of the very indictment you claimed would be so important.

You have claimed others have lied while presenting no evidnce of that what so ever..

And you keep talking about a turning point and the need to fight traitors (which you call anyone trying to focus on russian influence for all sides).

I am seriously worried you are losing it.

PM if you need to talk.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Gryph, are you ok?

You're starting to sound like someone close to the edge and with only a bit more urging, may snap.

Mueller's investigation was to determine what, if any, influence the Russians had over the 2016 election cycle. You're hyped up about the indictments and related reporting.

What specifically in the indictments pertain to the 2016 election cycle?

Then ask yourself why (and by whom) news that (sealed) indictments were leaked on a Friday to be chewed over the whole weekend.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'm perfectly fine Jaded. I'm sorry that you seem to mistake my passion for our country, the truth, and the rule-of-law as illness or some kind of breakdown. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here as you tend to attempt to focus on factual material rather than pure political rhetoric.)

You know as well as I do that what has been filed against Manafort and Gates is mostly sauce for the goose. It's leverage. The point of opening the sealed records on Papadopoulos the same day sends a clear message to all the covert actors (on any political side) that deals are available in exchange for information on the real concerns before the investigation, i.e. the well-known and established Russian meddling in our 2016 Election process.

If your concern is genuine, rest assured I am fine - I am resolved to take a different tactic than merely engaging in back-and-forth sniping that does nothing but confuse the vitally important issues before us as a nation. No, I don't think I'm leading some kind of crusade ... I'm only doing what I can do.

a reply to: Gryphon66

en.wikipedia.org... treason is one of the few crimes outlined in the constitution so far i dont think any thing comes even close to qualifying as such

In the United States, there are both federal and state laws prohibiting treason.[1] It was defined in Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. Most state constitutions include similar definitions of treason, specifically limited to levying war against the state, "adhering to the enemies" of the state, or aiding the enemies of the state, and requiring two witnesses or a confession in open court.[2] However, fewer than thirty people have ever been charged with treason under these laws.[3] Constitutionally, citizens of the United States owe allegiance to at least two sovereigns. One is the United States, and the other is their state. They can therefore potentially commit treason against either, or against both.[4] At least fourteen people have been charged with treason against various states; at least six were convicted, five of whom were executed. However, no person has ever been executed for treason against the federal government.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...:_Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

dont see any levving of war charges ,they seemed to be asking for info not giving aid and comfort , "adhearing to the enemies part" is a bit more vague politics.stackexchange.com... as they apparently dont have a set legal definition of note the following crimes are not considered treason ,from above link

So what isn't it? The Founders implicitly chose not to include these as treason: Planning to kill a political leader 'Violating' the wife or virgin daughter of the executive Counterfeiting the national seal Counterfeiting coinage Actually killing a political leader

so thats why none of the past presidential assassins were ever charged with treason

a reply to: jadedANDcynical


you guys are something else- are you okay? LOL puss tactic.

court documents unsealed monday describe emails between Papadopoulos and an unnamed "campaign supervisor." turns out that supervisor is sam clovis. sam was questioned last week by Mueller's team. he's trumps pick to become agriculture scientist - he is not a scientist.

he responded "great work" after Papadopoulos discussed his interactions with Russians who wanted to arrange a meeting with trump and russian leaders.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

I am very aware that an actual legal charge of treason is rare and would be very complicated to convict on in the United States.

However, calling out treason when it is very obvious, very clear and right before our eyes is not complicated and is our duty as citizens.

What is "War" against the United States? Is it only cannon and muskets as the Founders would have known? Or planes and bombs as we do?

I would say not. Whenever there is an organized, consistent, intentional and direct attempt to undermine and ultimately destroy our government and institutions and way of life, particularly in concert with foreign actors who also wish that destruction, then we are at war, and those responsible for such acts, no matter when or where, or what f-ing political party they are part of should be fought against with everything we have within us.

I don't use the term treason lightly. We all have rights to criticize and challenge those in our government, their actions, etc. These are fundamental to our way of life and character as Americans. What we see now right before us is not that, however.

It's my belief that we now face one of those choke-points in our history. What we are seeing right now is a culmination of a couple of decades of efforts to undermine and obliterate everything it means to be American.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


you guys are something else- are you okay? LOL puss tactic.

court documents unsealed monday describe emails between Papadopoulos and an unnamed "campaign supervisor." turns out that supervisor is sam clovis. sam was questioned last week by Mueller's team. he's trumps pick to become agriculture scientist - he is not a scientist.

Indeed. The indictments on Monday are only the beginning ... supporting that line of thought ...

The Mueller team has chosen to base its work out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, impaneling a grand jury there and filing its charges with the court. Manafort and Gates appeared at the courthouse Monday to enter not-guilty pleas, and Papadopoulos pleaded guilty there Oct. 5.

An investigative reporter for USA Today, looking through the court's docket in the wake of the Mueller news, noticed four more sealed cases whose case numbers fall between those involving Papadopoulos and Manafort.

Moreover, the indictment naming Manafort and Gates is labeled "Indictment (B)" – suggesting to some that there's an "Indictment (A)" yet to be released.

Monday was an appetizer. The main course is coming.

Source: US News and World Report

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas


I would say not. When there is an organized, consistent, intentional and direct attempt to undermine and ultimately destroy our government and institutions and way of life, particularly in concert with foreign actors who also wish that destruction, then we are at war, and those responsible for such acts, no matter when or where, or what f-ing political party they are part of should be fought against with everything we have within us.

It's my belief that we now face one of those choke-points in our history. What we are seeing right now is a culmination of a couple of decades of efforts to undermine and obliterate everything it means to be American.

Yes this is exactly right!!!

And the indictment showed that this may have indeed been occurring. It said that manafort was doing this from 2012 to 2014. To do this, he used the Podesta group and Mercury LLC, who knew they were working for foreign governments interests. They influence who knows how many people in DC; we need to find out.

Yet somehow you have ignored ALL of that!

You want to only focus on Trump.

Show me in the indictments were Manafort or anyone else is accused of doing this during Trumps campaign.

The closest to it is the indictment of George P, which I admitted looked bad for Trump and did a thread on.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yet you still call me a traitor, when it is you who refuses to look at all sides.

Ok, so handing down these indictments on Manafort (who this thread is about), is to put pressure on them to give up what they know about Russian attempts to influence the election?

I'm curious as to why this particular indictment (Manafort's) was leaked when it was.

As far as the indictments that were unsealed against Papadopolous, that's really a discussion for another thread. I will say this here regarding this guy, he just doesn't seem like someone who would be high enough up in the Trump campaign to have had any real effect whatsoever.

Manafort, however had a position of importance in the campaign albeit for a relatively short period of time and, as has been pointed out, is no stranger to political filth.

A bad personnel decision?

Certainly.

Proof of a willingness of Trump to be influenced by Russians?

Need a bit more convincing than what I've seen so far.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Ok, so handing down these indictments on Manafort (who this thread is about), is to put pressure on them to give up what they know about Russian attempts to influence the election?

I'm curious as to why this particular indictment (Manafort's) was leaked when it was.

As far as the indictments that were unsealed against Papadopolous, that's really a discussion for another thread. I will say this here regarding this guy, he just doesn't seem like someone who would be high enough up in the Trump campaign to have had any real effect whatsoever.

Manafort, however had a position of importance in the campaign albeit for a relatively short period of time and, as has been pointed out, is no stranger to political filth.

A bad personnel decision?

Certainly.

Proof of a willingness of Trump to be influenced by Russians?

Need a bit more convincing than what I've seen so far.

At this point, the best thing we can do is sit back and ride this out. There is no reason for us to start pointing fingers and accusing people of things until the indictments are handed down and the dust settles.

a reply to: Gryphon66
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II. Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty. The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.

so as were not at war with Russia i think that rules treason out ,this is one of the few pretty welly defined laws in the Constitution and nothing alleged so far for either democrats or republicans would fit the bill it even seems that accidental or treason through idiocy do not even fit the bill ,even the confeds weren't charged with treason for civil war (aforementioned pardon from Johnson) and if none of them swung for it i doubt any of the people who members have posted about fit the bill at all

from same link as above legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally protected speech (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

seems its pretty clear treason is not on the table

en.wikipedia.org... note he was not charged with treason and he actually aided a nation we were fighting at the time ,and he was a US citizen not a serving member of the military and yet no charge of treason ,yet he aided fought for and supplied arms for actual enemies of the us government and military

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Thanks for your research. Always good to present factual information.

a reply to: bgerbger

"Oh My!" (in best George Take voice)

a reply to: Gryphon66


[Quote]"...sends a clear message to all the covert actors (on any political side) that deals are available in exchange for information on the real concerns before the investigation, i.e. the well-known and established Russian meddling in our 2016 Election process. "




Gryph, if it's really well-known and established, there'd certainly be no need to make deals for information.

I'm not saying nothing will come up pointing to Trump by any means, but this sort of willful blindness about the Podesta Group coupled with a certainty of wrong-doing by Trump is certainly curious based on the information available to us so-far.

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I have to disagree with the New York Times.

"B-Movie plot line" is far too generous; this ridiculous dumb-show is pure third-rate Reality TV.

May I add...DJT's (most likely) treasonous activity against the United States as well.

"If Trump survives this crisis --- which may mean that American democracy doesn't --- tax cuts will have a lot to do with it."

quote: Paul Krugman - "Trump Won't Bring Joy to Moolaville" - NYT's OP-ED Tuesday, October 31, 2017

www.nytimes.com...

You are much funny poster .
(you were not serious....I hope...maybe ?)