U.S President: Donald Trump

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You have to wonder if Flynn has done a "Papadopoulos", and is one of the sealed cases? - there was as much evidence against him as there was against Manafort.

This is going to make one hell of a good movie.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mr K

This is going to make one hell of a good movie.

if this threads anything to go by it really won't make a good movie ,it's a dreadful read .

Originally Posted by Hugh

You have to wonder if Flynn has done a "Papadopoulos", and is one of the sealed cases? - there was as much evidence against him as there was against Manafort.

After yesterday I imagine they would stay well clear.

---------- Post added at 10:29 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

This is going to make one hell of a good movie.

All The Tsar's Men.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

if this threads anything to go by it really won't make a good movie ,it's a dreadful read .

Not to mention, I think normal people, are fed up of the hysteria and false narratives being put out there.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mick

Not to mention, I think normal people, are fed up of the hysteria and false narratives being put out there.

You're not wrong there Mick (at least I think I'm "normal").

We're talking about court documents and a man whose pleaded guilty.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Damien

All The Tsar's Men.

I was thinking more of 'Carry on Colluding'..... (with Barbara Windsor as Hillary, and John Travolta as the Donald ? )

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Mick

And you really think that will happen under a Republican controlled Congress, Supreme Court and Executive Branch ?

Going off topic a little for a minute, what Mick said above is why I think Trump actually has no evidence of any wrongdoing on Hillary's part, despite his protestations to the contrary. If he presented any evidence to the US government, she would be charged within hours, simply because the Republicans control congress, the executive branch and the supreme court. Even if she had not been charged in the first few hours, he has had 10 months to produce any evidence, she would have been charged (and possibly convicted) by now.

Regarding the Mueller investigation, I think there are links to the Trump campaign, and I think that has been proved. What I don't think has been proved yet (and I think it will, but in time) is if any of those links end at Trump himself, or his family.

It is important to remember that while Trump was in charge of the campaign, and ultimately benefited, he is not automatically responsible if his staff commit crimes without him being aware.

Originally Posted by Stuart

Going off topic a little for a minute, what Mick said above is why I think Trump actually has no evidence of any wrongdoing on Hillary's part, despite his protestations to the contrary. If he presented any evidence to the US government, she would be charged within hours, simply because the Republicans control congress, the executive branch and the supreme court. Even if she had not been charged in the first few hours, he has had 10 months to produce any evidence, she would have been charged (and possibly convicted) by now.

Regarding the Mueller investigation, I think there are links to the Trump campaign, and I think that has been proved. What I don't think has been proved yet (and I think it will, but in time) is if any of those links end at Trump himself, or his family.

It is important to remember that while Trump was in charge of the campaign, and ultimately benefited, he is not automatically responsible if his staff commit crimes without him being aware.

It is not up to Trump to present evidence on Hillary, there is strong indications being reported and in Washington Post, which is Anti-Trump, that going off financial transactions that the Podesta Company (Hillary’s Campaign Team) and the DNC paid for the Fake Russian Dossier on Trump. Many legal commentators say Hillary should be worried.

As for last part of your post. When Trump became aware of Manaforts ties to Russian counterparts, he severed ties by firing him. Which could be the wisest decision that saves him.

Originally Posted by Mick

It is not up to Trump to present evidence on Hillary, there is strong indications being reported and in Washington Post, which is Anti-Trump, that going off financial transactions that the Podesta Company (Hillary’s Campaign Team) and the DNC paid for the Fake Russian Dossier on Trump. Many legal commentators say Hillary should be worried.

Which legal commentators?

Also the Podesta Company was not Hillary Campaign Team. It was John Podesta his brother who managed it.

Originally Posted by Mick

As for last part of your post. When Trump became aware of Manaforts ties to Russian counterparts, he severed ties by firing him. Which could be the wisest decision that saves him.

It's not Manafort but Papadopoulos he'll be concerned about at the moment.

Originally Posted by Damien

Which legal commentators?

Also the Podesta Company was not Hillary Campaign Team. It was John Podesta his brother who managed it.

Legal commentators & legal professors in the US.

However, both brothers founded the group, Tony Podesta left the firm as of yesterday due to close scrutiny due to the revelations of the firm and the DNC paying millions for the Trump Russian Dossier. Which it is being said is a potential crime, felony.

Tony doesn’t want the firm to fight the revelations, he wants to do that as individual, to which he will be a bit late, if a prosecutor is assigned, they will sift through everything with the Podesta name on it. Walking away from the firm, does not mean automatic immunity to them.

Originally Posted by Damien

It's not Manafort but Papadopoulos he'll be concerned about at the moment.

I don’t believe he will be. He pleaded guilty to telling porkies to the FBI about having Russian links. Papa, tried to setup meetings with these Russians and Trump several times, but Manafort told him no.

Clearly Mueller has nothing credible on Trump collusion, else why go through with now trying to leverage Manafort with these charges, in a bid to do a deal to get Manafort to talk on what he knows, if there is actually something to talk about?

Originally Posted by Mick

Legal commentators & legal professors in the US.

Ok but there are a lot of commentators. If there is something there then the FBI can investigate or indeed have a special prosecutor. The Democrats control no branches of government so they can't stop it. People talking on TV isn't enough.

If there is enough then by all means they should investigate. Doesn't take anything away from the Mueller investigation.

Originally Posted by Mick

However, both brothers founded the group, Tony Podesta left the firm as of yesterday due to close scrutiny due to the revelations of the firm and the DNC paying millions for the Trump Russian Dossier. Which it is being said is a potential crime, felony.

Tony doesn’t want the firm to fight the revelations, he wants to do that as individual, to which he will be a bit late, if a prosecutor is assigned, they will sift through everything with the Podesta name on it. Walking away from the firm, does not mean automatic immunity to them.

All true and Tony Podesta might be in the same trouble. However his brother John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, isn't yet implicated in this. He left the firm in 1993 before the time of these allegations (2012-2014).

Also the DNC / Fusion GPS dossier thing is different from The Podesta Group case. The latter is being investigated by Mueller.

Clearly Mueller has nothing credible on Trump collusion, else why go through with now trying to leverage Manafort with these charges, in a bid to do a deal to get Manafort to talk on what he knows, if there is actually something to talk about?

There is a difference between Trump collusion and collusion generally. He does have clearly have evidence of the later. I don't know what Mueller actually has on Trump or anyone else in the campaign. My wild guess is that Trump himself will never be implicated personally but that more senior people than Papadopoulos might be. Any risk to Trump would be if he was judged to have impeded the FBI investigation into this case by firing Corney. Remember this what the FBI was investigating.

Mueller's investigation is still going. Who else is in those sealed documents? Who has Papadopoulos talked too since working for the investigation? Does Mueller have other people who've been secretly charged?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

There is a difference between Trump collusion and collusion generally. He does have clearly have evidence of the later.

Agreed but good luck in convincing Mick of this!

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed but good luck in convincing Mick of this!

I agree with Damien’s assertions, but you on other hand, have previously declared him guilty of collusion, when evidence is a bit on the thin side.

Originally Posted by Mick

I agree with Damien’s assertions, but you on other hand, have previously declared him guilty of collusion, when evidence is a bit on the thin side.

Hey I didn't conclude with anyone.