Manafort should have worn a "WH FOR SALE" T-Shirt....

[Freewill]

Why did Pres Trump pick him as his campaign manager? Was it for his connection to Russians?

Why does anyone in their right mind think that being connected to Russia would be a good thing? Well we know that for one it would be Hillary. But Trump? He didn't need their money he spent far less then did Hillary. This whole affair is going to turn around to bite Hillary and the democrats in the ass and I am going to enjoy watching.

Yes, of course you believe those lies about Hillary's Russian connections.

Why don't you try FACT CHECKING before you spill your goo?

Hillary's Russia Connection

Russian Collusion: Hillary Clinton Invited Vladimir Putin To “Pay For Play” Event | Galactic Connection

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Fact-checking Trump’s tweets about Clinton and Russia

You were provided what you asked for and it was NOT Trump's tweets.
She is dirty and you were shown that she was. Now you are just trying to change the subject.

 

[easyt65]

 

[bodecea]

We are not privy to any evidence in the hands of the Mueller investigators....we are not highly placed within the Investigation. Are you? Are you able to see all they have so that you can clearly and truthfully say that they have NO evidence? Yes or no?

NO evidence found / presented a crime was even ever committed....Barry just started digging ... and illegally sharing ... and illegally leaking ... and illegally unmasking ... and illegally colluding with foreign agents... and....

View attachment 150567

How do you know that NO evidence has been found? Are you able to see all that the Mueller investigators have? Yes? No?

 

[bodecea]

Why did Pres Trump pick him as his campaign manager? Was it for his connection to Russians?

Why does anyone in their right mind think that being connected to Russia would be a good thing? Well we know that for one it would be Hillary. But Trump? He didn't need their money he spent far less then did Hillary. This whole affair is going to turn around to bite Hillary and the democrats in the ass and I am going to enjoy watching.

Yes, of course you believe those lies about Hillary's Russian connections.

Why don't you try FACT CHECKING before you spill your goo?

Hillary's Russia Connection

Russian Collusion: Hillary Clinton Invited Vladimir Putin To “Pay For Play” Event | Galactic Connection

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Fact-checking Trump’s tweets about Clinton and Russia

You were provided what you asked for and it was Trump's tweets.
She is dirty and you were shown that she was. Now you are just trying to change the subject.

Tweets are facts now?

 

[bodecea]

View attachment 150570

You DO know this thread is about Manafort and not H. Clinton, right?

 

[easyt65]

How do you know that NO evidence has been found? Are you able to see all that the Mueller investigators have? Yes? No?

Bo, you are stuck on 'STUPID'. You are desperately trying to force the focus to stay on Mueller and his short-lived so far investigation, thereby avoiding having to go back 10 months ate fail again at providing any evidence that there was EVER a crime committed to investigate.

Like Maxine Waters declaring 'We can make any shit up we want to use to Impeach Trump', Snowflakes want the 'right' to walk up to Trump and be like, 'I accuse you of killing babies' and demand Trump go through an investigation so thorough by Clinton Donors and lawyers that it feels like a colonoscopy despite the fact that there is no evidence to show any babies were killed....

THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE, FROM THE VERY START, THAT THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED THAT NEEDED INVESTIGATING....

 

[Freewill]

Why does anyone in their right mind think that being connected to Russia would be a good thing? Well we know that for one it would be Hillary. But Trump? He didn't need their money he spent far less then did Hillary. This whole affair is going to turn around to bite Hillary and the democrats in the ass and I am going to enjoy watching.

Yes, of course you believe those lies about Hillary's Russian connections.

Why don't you try FACT CHECKING before you spill your goo?

Hillary's Russia Connection

Russian Collusion: Hillary Clinton Invited Vladimir Putin To “Pay For Play” Event | Galactic Connection

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Fact-checking Trump’s tweets about Clinton and Russia

You were provided what you asked for and it was Trump's tweets.
She is dirty and you were shown that she was. Now you are just trying to change the subject.

Tweets are facts now?

Thanks, I fixed my post. The one using tweets as evidence was not me.

 

[easyt65]

View attachment 150570

You DO know this thread is about Manafort and not H. Clinton, right?

Yes, and I was just answering Bo's crazy post...

But you do know that Mueller is going after Manafort because Hillary and snowflakes made shit up about un-proven crimes that included 'Russian Collusion' that caused her to 'lose the election', right?

It's all relevant, dawg...

 

[bodecea]

How do you know that NO evidence has been found? Are you able to see all that the Mueller investigators have? Yes? No?

Bo, you are stuck on 'STUPID'. You are desperately trying to force the focus to stay on Mueller and his short-lived so far investigation, thereby avoiding having to go back 10 months ate fail again at providing any evidence that there was EVER a crime committed to investigate.

Like Maxine Waters declaring 'We can make any shit up we want to use to Impeach Trump', Snowflakes want the 'right' to walk up to Trump and be like, 'I accuse you of killing babies' and demand Trump go through an investigation so thorough by Clinton Donors and lawyers that it feels like a colonoscopy despite the fact that there is no evidence to show any babies were killed....

THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE, FROM THE VERY START, THAT THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED THAT NEEDED INVESTIGATING....

"THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE, FROM THE VERY START, THAT THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED THAT NEEDED INVESTIGATING..."

How do you KNOW that unless you have seen ALL the information that the Mueller team has. Have you? Yes or No?

 

[nat4900]

what has happened historically to make you believe that to be true?

The ultimate legal "scholar," Sean Hannity, told them that its true???

Just guessing here.....LOL

 

[easyt65]

How do you know that NO evidence has been found? Are you able to see all that the Mueller investigators have? Yes? No?

Bo, you are stuck on 'STUPID'. You are desperately trying to force the focus to stay on Mueller and his short-lived so far investigation, thereby avoiding having to go back 10 months ate fail again at providing any evidence that there was EVER a crime committed to investigate.

Like Maxine Waters declaring 'We can make any shit up we want to use to Impeach Trump', Snowflakes want the 'right' to walk up to Trump and be like, 'I accuse you of killing babies' and demand Trump go through an investigation so thorough by Clinton Donors and lawyers that it feels like a colonoscopy despite the fact that there is no evidence to show any babies were killed....

THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE, FROM THE VERY START, THAT THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED THAT NEEDED INVESTIGATING....

"THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE, FROM THE VERY START, THAT THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED THAT NEEDED INVESTIGATING..."

How do you KNOW that unless you have seen ALL the information that the Mueller team has. Have you? Yes or No?

"THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE, FROM THE VERY START, THAT THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED THAT NEEDED INVESTIGATING..."

Only snowflakes claim they have to be allowed to conduct an investigation and dig for evidence of any crime that needed to be investigated in the 1st place.

You are 'certifiable'...

 

[bodecea]

How do you know that NO evidence has been found? Are you able to see all that the Mueller investigators have? Yes? No?

Bo, you are stuck on 'STUPID'. You are desperately trying to force the focus to stay on Mueller and his short-lived so far investigation, thereby avoiding having to go back 10 months ate fail again at providing any evidence that there was EVER a crime committed to investigate.

Like Maxine Waters declaring 'We can make any shit up we want to use to Impeach Trump', Snowflakes want the 'right' to walk up to Trump and be like, 'I accuse you of killing babies' and demand Trump go through an investigation so thorough by Clinton Donors and lawyers that it feels like a colonoscopy despite the fact that there is no evidence to show any babies were killed....

THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE, FROM THE VERY START, THAT THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED THAT NEEDED INVESTIGATING....

"THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE, FROM THE VERY START, THAT THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED THAT NEEDED INVESTIGATING..."

How do you KNOW that unless you have seen ALL the information that the Mueller team has. Have you? Yes or No?

"THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE, FROM THE VERY START, THAT THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED THAT NEEDED INVESTIGATING..."

Only snowflakes claim they have to be allowed to conduct an investigation and dig for evidence of any crime that needed to be investigated in the 1st place.

You are 'certifiable'...

I have to wonder why you avoid answering whether you have access to all of the evidence of the Mueller investigation like it's some kind of mine field.

Why can't you say "Yes, I have access to all of the evidence of the Mueller investigation"
or
"No, I do not have access to all of the evidence of the Mueller investigation."

I, myself, will readily admit that I do not have access to all of the evidence of the Mueller investigation....so I cannot say that they have and what they do not have.

 

[bodecea]

Isn't it strange that someone would be afraid to answer a yes or no question?

 

[rightwinger]

Isn't it strange that someone would be afraid to answer a yes or no question?

Yes

 

[ClosedCaption]

We are not privy to any evidence in the hands of the Mueller investigators....we are not highly placed within the Investigation. Are you? Are you able to see all they have so that you can clearly and truthfully say that they have NO evidence? Yes or no?

NO evidence found / presented a crime was even ever committed....Barry just started digging ... and illegally sharing ... and illegally leaking ... and illegally unmasking ... and illegally colluding with foreign agents... and....

View attachment 150567

Yeah! What in the world is a FISA anyway? Sounds dumb to me huur duurr

 

[bodecea]

Let me ask everyone else here....anyone have access to ALL the evidence held by the Mueller Investigation?

Anyone?

Anyone?

 

[rightwinger]

Let me ask everyone else here....anyone have access to ALL the evidence held by the Mueller Investigation?

Anyone?

Anyone?

I know a guy who has seen it

He says Crooked Donnie is going to jail

 

[NightFox]

None of us have anything yet.....none of us are truly privy to what's going on inside the Investigation.

The only tangible proof that we certainly have against Manafort, is the fact that a FISA judge granted TWO search warrants....THAT would not have happened without adequate and damning probable cause and the "fear" that documentation would have been destroyed by Manafort.

LOL, you're joking right? the track record for FISA warrants is that %0.03 of requests get denied, which basically means the DOJ Lawyer has to show up high on both heroine and crack, grab the Presiding Judges private parts and threaten to screw him with a rubber chicken and an Oreo cookie and then maybe the request will be declined.

The FISA warrants are in NO way any indication that reasonable probable cause existed anymore than FISA issuing a warrant authorizing surveillance on 10's of millions of American Citizens (which the FISA court did) indicates that there is probable cause to suspect them of any wrongdoing .

If that's your only "tangible proof" that you certainly have against Manafort then you might as well drop the matter now since that amounts to ZERO.

You are aware that both the FISA courts was initiated by republicans, AND that 10 of the 11 FISA judges were appointed by republicans.

Who cares which partisan assholes initiated it? the fact is that FISA is a secret kangaroo court with zero judicial review that gives out warrants like they're going out of style and if we went by FISA warrants as any indication of guilt every American with a cell phone would guilty.

Are you hereby condemning republicans??..........yes or No?

As per my usual, yeah, fuck the Republicans and fuck the Democrats, they're both nothing more than organized crime families, what's your point?

"FISA is a secret kangaroo court with zero judicial review that gives out warrents like they are going out of style"......what has happened historically to make you believe that to be true?

The denial rate of requests (just 0.03%) and remember Edward Snowden? The FISA court approved those unconstitutional mass surveillance of American Citizens. Its judges are appointed at the discretion of one man (the Chief Justice of SCOTUS) and aren't subject to Congressional Confirmation. It's rulings are sealed and aren't subject to judicial review, except BY ITSELF. It can issue a warrant on anybody and the subject cannot challenge the legality of the evidence gathering process because the defense can't review the details of the warrant issue, it can only request a review by FISA which amounts to a free fishing expedition license for prosecutors.

It's a completely closed, DOJ controlled, star chamber process and the fact that it was responsible for allowing the violation of millions of Americans civil liberties by approving mass surveillance of citizens where no probable cause existed demonstrates that.

 

[bodecea]

The only tangible proof that we certainly have against Manafort, is the fact that a FISA judge granted TWO search warrants....THAT would not have happened without adequate and damning probable cause and the "fear" that documentation would have been destroyed by Manafort.

LOL, you're joking right? the track record for FISA warrants is that %0.03 of requests get denied, which basically means the DOJ Lawyer has to show up high on both heroine and crack, grab the Presiding Judges private parts and threaten to screw him with a rubber chicken and an Oreo cookie and then maybe the request will be declined.

The FISA warrants are in NO way any indication that reasonable probable cause existed anymore than FISA issuing a warrant authorizing surveillance on 10's of millions of American Citizens (which the FISA court did) indicates that there is probable cause to suspect them of any wrongdoing .

If that's your only "tangible proof" that you certainly have against Manafort then you might as well drop the matter now since that amounts to ZERO.

You are aware that both the FISA courts was initiated by republicans, AND that 10 of the 11 FISA judges were appointed by republicans.

Who cares which partisan assholes initiated it? the fact is that FISA is a secret kangaroo court with zero judicial review that gives out warrants like they're going out of style and if we went by FISA warrants as any indication of guilt every American with a cell phone would guilty.

Are you hereby condemning republicans??..........yes or No?

As per my usual, yeah, fuck the Republicans and fuck the Democrats, they're both nothing more than organized crime families, what's your point?

"FISA is a secret kangaroo court with zero judicial review that gives out warrents like they are going out of style"......what has happened historically to make you believe that to be true?

The denial rate of requests (just 0.03%) and remember Edward Snowden? The FISA court approved those unconstitutional mass surveillance of American Citizens. Its judges are appointed at the discretion of one man (the Chief Justice of SCOTUS) and aren't subject to Congressional Confirmation. It's rulings are sealed and aren't subject to judicial review, except BY ITSELF. It can issue a warrant on anybody and the subject cannot challenge the legality of the evidence gathering process because the defense can't review the details of the warrant issue, it can only request a review by FISA which amounts to a free fishing expedition license for prosecutors.

It's a completely closed, DOJ controlled, star chamber process and the fact that it was responsible for allowing the violation of millions of Americans civil liberties by approving mass surveillance of citizens where no probable cause existed demonstrates that.

Thanks for answering.

 

[nat4900]

It can issue a warrant on anybody and the subject cannot challenge the legality of the evidence gathering process because the defense can't review the details of the warrant issue, it can only request a review by FISA which amounts to a free fishing expedition license for prosecutors.

Far from "defending" the DOJ, we must acknowledge (unless we're nihilists) that the Department must have some pretty decent lawyers; it is THESE lawyers that present before the FISA courts enough evidence to precipitate the issuance of a warrant.

Unless you're one who believes that the entire justice system in our country is thoroughly corrupt, you cannot deny a ruling based on your own partisan biases.

Want to do away with the entire FISA system ??? If so, you must take responsibility for ALL future threats to our democracy......
Are you sure you want to do that???