aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Cuomo is going to sue the SCOTUS!!! Curious to which court is going to take that case? What an idiot.

---

Sue whom, exactly? And for what? Like everything else, Cuomo didn't think that one through.

---

What a dumbass. If you want abortion to be legal in your state so bad, just either A. don't make it illegal or B. Write it into your states constitution while you've got the numbers.

Yeah that JD from Albany must be really dusty.

That entire speech is hysterical.

Freudian slip?

RPC, please go to the Judge Kavanaugh thread and let me know what you think.

Prognightmare said:

---

RPC, please go to the Judge Kavanaugh thread and let me know what you think.

---

Dixie pretty much summed up the the Rosey act of assigning 279 lawyers to review Kavanaugh papers. Curious where Sessions is on all this. I saw the thread earlier. Considering the OP I just kept on walking not giving it much thought. The hysterics over Kavanaugh is laughable. All the doomsday left just found their next claim of armageddon.

Thanks bud

Weissmann has asked the court's permission to present evidence of Manafort's interactions with the DOJ concerning his FARA inspections and work for Saudi Arabia. When did the DOJ have an issue with his work for the Saudis? Did I miss something?

From 1984 to 1986? GEEZUS just how far can they wave the statute of Limitations on FARA?

But no serious prosecutor would bring a case against Hillary Clinton, right?

Does Katy Tur actually know when the Declaration of Independence was written right? She can't be that much of an idiot...... or maybe on the other hand....

Quote:

---

"Is the originalist interpretation of the Constitution was "appropriate" since Americans have become more progressive."

---

Seriously?

Quote:

---

"Well, the arc of history has shown that opinions have become more progressive, and even just lately on the issues that are potentially going to become before the court, or issues that have been ruled on relatively recently by the Court, Americans are more progressive, look at the polling."

---

Now we base the rule of law on polling? The idiocy just keeps getting deeper.

What are you talking about SoL for? They aren't trying to prosecute him for those activities noted in the motion - it's required notice under FRE 404(b) of evidence they intend to present at trial.

Quote:

---

Goodlatte and Gowdy Give Lisa Page Attorney Three Options to Avoid Contempt Charges Scheduled for Friday 13th

Three Options: #1) Lisa Page can appear tomorrow with Peter Strzok (already scheduled). #2) Present herself for deposition Friday 13th. #3) Do both 1 and 2....

Below is the text of the letter.

July 11, 2018
Ms. Amy Jeffress, Esq.
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington DC, 20001-3743

Dear Ms. Jeffress:

As you are aware, the House Committees on the Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform are investigating decisions made and not made during the 2016 election by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Interviewing your client, Lisa Page, is an important part of this investigation. After months of trying to secure her appearance, the Committees scheduled her deposition for July 11, 2018. Despite proper service of your client with a subpoena directing her to appear, she did not. The Judiciary Committee intends to initiate contempt proceedings on Friday, July 13, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. We are aware of the issues raised regarding access to documents by the FBI. We are also aware of Committee efforts to schedule your client's appearance for over 6 (six) months now.

As an additional, and final, accommodation, the Committee will stay the contempt proceedings provided Lisa Page voluntarily appears on July 12, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., at a previously scheduled public hearing regarding relevant issues under investigation. While your client would still be deposed at some point, appearance at the hearing scheduled for Thursday July 12, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. would negate the need for immediate contempt proceedings. Alternatively, your client, Lisa Page, could present herself for a deposition on Friday, July 13, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. This option would stay contempt proceedings and resolve the Committees' need to depose your client. Your client may also choose to participate in both the public hearing July 12, 2018, and the deposition July 13, 2018.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

Trey Gowdy
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

---

MASAXET said:

---

What are you talking about SoL for? They aren't trying to prosecute him for those activities noted in the motion - it's required notice under FRE 404(b) of evidence they intend to present at trial.

---

Does the term "prior bad acts" ring a bell for you? As in, inadmissible because they are prejudicial? A criminal conviction over ten years old is inadmissible in most circumstances. Evidence of what they thin he did in 1985 as evidence of intent to violate FARA, of all things, is ludicrous. If they had a rock solid case, they wouldn't be resorting to such trash.

The fact that they are is more telling, to me. But by all means, Mueller, go microscopic up Manafort's colon, because we all know you have nothing else to really investigate.

Jeebus! I dislike Manafort and think he's guilty of all sorts of the standard K Street shenanigans, like Carville, Begala, Podesta and every single other "political consulting" firm but have to say, that is overkill to the extent that Mueller is making Manafort into a victim of an OOC prosecutor with no oversight, an unlimited budget and an Ahab like obsession.

Manafort is Mueller's white whale.

aggiehawg said:

---

Evidence of what they thin he did in 1985 as evidence of intent to violate FARA, of all things, is ludicrous.

---

Will Manafort be able to show they never prosecute anybody for FARA, so why bother registering?

Quote:

---

Manafort is Mueller's white whale.

---

Perhaps it will work out as well.

I'm sure she's really that dumb.

drcrinum said:

---

---

Hawg was right about the Marsha Clark makeover.

Quote:

---

Will Manafort be able to show they never prosecute anybody for FARA, so why bother registering?

---

Uhh, that's a yes and no. Defense team can hammer on the dearth of prosecutions as opposed to just fines. OTOH, they can't parade witness after witness who raises their hand and says, "I violate FARA everyday!"

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1017089605609316353.html

This thread is rather hilarious. Remember, Solomon wrote an article is which he revealed that at least 3 different copies of the Trump dossier existed per a Strzok email that was released....Steele/FBI, Simpson, McCain & David Corn. This was really interesting because Simpson testified that he never communicated with Strzok, and Steele claimed he never gave any copies of the dossier to the press (Corn). Well, Corn put out a tweet about his copy, and a host of Internet sleuths as well as an investigative journalist have torn Corn up on Twitter. This thread provides the details.

This is the funniest thing on twitter right now, the replies are hilarious

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

This is the funniest thing on twitter right now, the replies are hilarious

---

And most other comments about Cuomo are that he could have Trump indicted right now if he wanted.

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Cuomo is going to sue the SCOTUS!!! Curious to which court is going to take that case? What an idiot.

---

Sue whom, exactly? And for what? Like everything else, Cuomo didn't think that one through.

---

It's almost as if y'all didn't know that a district judge in Hawaii has supremacy over the "so called" "Supreme Court".

Duh.

MASAXET said:

---

What are you talking about SoL for? They aren't trying to prosecute him for those activities noted in the motion - it's required notice under FRE 404(b) of evidence they intend to present at trial.

---

No but I sure do question relevance and admissibility.

the 10 year limit is on rule 609 for impeachment, not 404 use of character evidence.


Mueller is doing exactly what is required under the law to use this evidence. The "statutue of limitations" question Roscoe brought up doesn't make any sense as MASAXETS pointed out

BMX Bandit said:

---

the 10 year limit is on rule 609 for impeachment, not 404 use of character evidence.


Mueller is doing exactly what is required under the law to use this evidence. The "statutue of limitations" question Roscoe brought up doesn't make any sense as MASAXETS pointed out

---

Why did you address that to me? I didn't raise the SOL issue.

I noted that going back to 1985 for prior bad acts on a FARA violation says Team Mueller perceives they have a weak case for whatever reason. You want to use the best evidence closest in time to the acts complained of to show mens rea.

becuase you brought up the 10 year limit. roscoe brought up SOL, which my posts says.

drcrinum said:

---

---

Guess she didn't want to reunite with Ol' Pete on live TV. AWKWARD!

aggiehawg said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

Guess she didn't want to reunite with Ol' Pete on live TV. AWKWARD!

---

Sounds by design so she can testify after Strzok so she knows what he says in his public hearing.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

This is the funniest thing on twitter right now, the replies are hilarious

---

Probably sue in the World Court. Lately the left has been talking more and more about using it or the ICC to take down Trump, ICE, etc.

BMX Bandit said:

---

becuase you brought up the 10 year limit. roscoe brought up SOL, which my posts says.

---

I brought up criminal convictions as an example of prior bad acts but not as the only evidence of prior bad acts. Having to go back 30 years for prior bad acts on a FARA violation is laughable to me. That's really the "best evidence" that they have?

That's the question, "best evidence." Otherwise trials would go on forever in a legal parody of Paul Manafort? This Is Your Life! (Remember that show?) He stole candy when he was five!

nvm, wrong thread

Simply bumped thread...and will add...as each day passes and watching another Congressional hearing, I'm convinced we're screwed.