FriscoKid said:

---

Oh geez. Let's assume that trump is on tape using the "n word" (which he is not).

In what universe is this even remotely something that Mueller would have a legal case on??? Never mind that this has anything to do with Russian collusion. It's not even criminal in any way whatsoever.

---

No one claims it does

Omarosa is claiming Trump knew Wikileaks was going to dump the Hillary emails before it happened

I don't think Omarosa has any knowledge of that & don't believe anything she has to say about any investigators wanting to talk to her

OK, that makes more sense

BMX Bandit said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Oh geez. Let's assume that trump is on tape using the "n word" (which he is not).

In what universe is this even remotely something that Mueller would have a legal case on??? Never mind that this has anything to do with Russian collusion. It's not even criminal in any way whatsoever.

---

No one claims it does

Omarosa is claiming Trump knew Wikileaks was going to dump the Hillary emails before it happened

I don't think Omarosa has any knowledge of that & don't believe anything she has to say about any investigators wanting to talk to her

---

And I don't believe Mueller even wants any of her stuff. I think the report is that she OFFERED it up, not that he requested it or accepted any of it.

FbgTxAg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Papadopoulos

---

Discovery? For what? I thought he pled guilty already?

---

That's what it says on page 5 of the transcript. This sounds like to me a protective order to prohibit George & his attorneys from revealing/producing/exposing any of the discovery material that was used in this case against to him. In essence, they want to hide it from the general public and George & his attorney agreed to that. Problem with that, he pled this thing out immediately on a Charging Document not a GJ indictment, and it was a lying to FBI charge. What discovery is there to hide? puzzling

BMX Bandit said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Oh geez. Let's assume that trump is on tape using the "n word" (which he is not).

In what universe is this even remotely something that Mueller would have a legal case on??? Never mind that this has anything to do with Russian collusion. It's not even criminal in any way whatsoever.

---

No one claims it does

Omarosa is claiming Trump knew Wikileaks was going to dump the Hillary emails before it happened

I don't think Omarosa has any knowledge of that & don't believe anything she has to say about any investigators wanting to talk to her

---

And Hillary's e-mails have never been released to the public, but the dumb fool can't even get that fact correct.

Liberals exist solely off the "charity" of others. What an embarrassment to beg for money.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

FbgTxAg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Papadopoulos

---

Discovery? For what? I thought he pled guilty already?

---

That's what it says on page 5 of the transcript. This sounds like to me a protective order to prohibit George & his attorneys from revealing/producing/exposing any of the discovery material that was used in this case against to him. In essence, they want to hide it from the general public and George & his attorney agreed to that. Problem with that, he pled this thing out immediately on a Charging Document not a GJ indictment, and it was a lying to FBI charge. What discovery is there to hide? puzzling

---

Just want people to be clear what the difference is. "Lying to the FBI" is a subjective charge. A person can be telling the complete truth as they know it and not under oath. BUT, the FBI can choose to believe someone like Omarosa who contradicts it.

Perjury is under oath and requires hard evidence to make a justiciable case. Lying to the FBI is really a bogus type of charge that has more teeth than it should have, in my view. Ask Martha Stewart. (And I don't like Martha Stewart but she got a raw deal.)

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

He should bump the goal to 2 million and let the dumbass libs fund his retirement.

I read Papa's charging instrument after knowing who most of the characters are and why they are involved. I think the kid got screwed royally.

VegasAg86 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

He should bump the goal to 2 million and let the dumbass libs fund his retirement.

---

Why stop there? Five million because the 2 million will go towards legal fees and Strzok still gotta pay his bills and eat. He's now Reverend Sharpton.

That eould work, too. He went over $350k in 24 hours, I'm sure he can get into 7 figures without much trouble. I was going on the assumption he isn't going to get the Trump Associate treatment and won't need that much for attorneys.

blindey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

He should bump the goal to 2 million and let the dumbass libs fund his retirement.

---

Why stop there? Five million because the 2 million will go towards legal fees and Strzok still gotta pay his bills and eat. He's now Reverend Sharpton.

---

this is proof that people have taken their political views as religious views. Willing to put cash in the (D) offering plate even when the money can't have an impact on the cause.

---

TDS is real and really profitable for those that with to exploit it.

VegasAg86 said:

---

I read Papa's charging instrument after knowing who most of the characters are and why they are involved. I think the kid got screwed royally.

---

Well he's over 30, so not really a kid. He was off about the date of a conversation. Was blindsided and arrested at an airport, detained, not charged until much later when he had been led to believe he was fully cooperating and under no legal jeopardy. He had a meltdown when he was arrested at Dulles. But here's the weird thing. FBI takes him into custody and immediately call his lawyer in the middle of the night.

Yeah, the FBI agents arresting him knew who his lawyer was and his number because he had been cooperating for some time. Further, the FBI agents called the lawyer to ask him to calm Papadop, since he was in full meltdown.

Quote:

---

NEW YORK (FOX5NY) - The woman known as the "Manhattan Madam" for once running a high-end prostitution ring in New York City says she was bullied by Robert Mueller's team when she was forced to testify in front of a grand jury in connection with the Russia investigation.

Kristin Davis said she was forced to answer leading questions on the character of her longtime friend and colleague Roger Stone.

<snip>

She says she knows nothing about what they are looking for and guesses why she was subpoenaed.

"I think part of it might have been to frustrate Roger (Stone)," Davis says.

Roger Stone and his wife are godparents to her child. Davis has refused to publicly named the father.

---

http://www.fox5ny.com/news/kristin-davis-talks-about-russia-investigation

Rapier108 said:

---

Quote:

---

NEW YORK (FOX5NY) - The woman known as the "Manhattan Madam" for once running a high-end prostitution ring in New York City says she was bullied by Robert Mueller's team when she was forced to testify in front of a grand jury in connection with the Russia investigation.

Kristin Davis said she was forced to answer leading questions on the character of her longtime friend and colleague Roger Stone.

<snip>

She says she knows nothing about what they are looking for and guesses why she was subpoenaed.

"I think part of it might have been to frustrate Roger (Stone)," Davis says.

Roger Stone and his wife are godparents to her child. Davis has refused to publicly named the father.

---

http://www.fox5ny.com/news/kristin-davis-talks-about-russia-investigation

---

When they say this they lose credibility quickly, forced is BS

blindey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

He should bump the goal to 2 million and let the dumbass libs fund his retirement.

---

Why stop there? Five million because the 2 million will go towards legal fees and Strzok still gotta pay his bills and eat. He's now Reverend Sharpton.

---

this is proof that people have taken their political views as religious views. Willing to put cash in the (D) offering plate even when the money can't have an impact on the cause.

---

I hope he gets billions of dollars. Less money going directly to the DNC.

mrad85 said:

---

blindey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

He should bump the goal to 2 million and let the dumbass libs fund his retirement.

---

Why stop there? Five million because the 2 million will go towards legal fees and Strzok still gotta pay his bills and eat. He's now Reverend Sharpton.

---

this is proof that people have taken their political views as religious views. Willing to put cash in the (D) offering plate even when the money can't have an impact on the cause.

---

I hope he gets billions of dollars. Less money going directly to the DNC.

---

A) I don't believe this is set up by or going to Strzok himself at all. It's being pushed through this GFM thing to the DNC or some other anti-Trump organization

Or

B) it is set up by and going to Strzok but at some point he'll declare that he got more than enough to do what he needs, so the rest will be donate to the DNC or some other anti-Trump org.

Either way, a big chuck of $$$ to the DNC or anti-Trump org.

Bump in preparation for closing arguments today. Seems that the issue of Ellis' joke about Manafort couldn't have been watching the finances that closely if Gates was stealing so much money is coming back into play.

Seems more like deductive reasoning than humor.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Seems more like deductive reasoning than humor.

---

True. Although I will be interested to read transcripts of the closing arguments it will be the judge's charging the jury of most interest to me. Particularly when he addresses credibility issues of witnesses who have outside considerations in exchange for their testimony (limited immunity or plea deals.) Plus I expect the judge to instruct the jury that his comments from the bench is not evidence that they should consider.

Although Downing's comments yesterday that the defense rested because they didn't think the prosecution had proved their case is the standard spiel for those circumstances, I do have to wonder what was discussed for several hours under seal. It is conceivable that Ellis may have signaled he will not instruct on a charge or two. My guess is the conspiracy to commit bank fraud on loans Manafort never received.

People get turned down for loans all of the time. Making the mere application for a loan into a criminal act is not something upon which Ellis appears too keen.

aggiehawg said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Seems more like deductive reasoning than humor.

---

True. Although I will be interested to read transcripts of the closing arguments it will be the judge's charging the jury of most interest to me. Particularly when he addresses credibility issues of witnesses who have outside considerations in exchange for their testimony (limited immunity or plea deals.) Plus I expect the judge to instruct the jury that his comments from the bench is not evidence that they should consider.

Although Downing's comments yesterday that the defense rested because they didn't think the prosecution had proved their case is the standard spiel for those circumstances, I do have to wonder what was discussed for several hours under seal. It is conceivable that Ellis may have signaled he will not instruct on a charge or two. My guess is the conspiracy to commit bank fraud on loans Manafort never received.

People get turned down for loans all of the time. Making the mere application for a loan into a criminal act is not something upon which Ellis appears too keen.

---

Possible, but I disagree. My supposition is that the defense received some unfavorable rulings during the conference that led them to rest without presenting witnesses. I would not be surprised in the least if a lot of the discussion was regarding what doors would be opened to the prosecution if certain witnesses/testimony were presented by the defense. For example, the possibility of the prosecution getting another swing at prior bad acts if the defense presented witnesses/testimony to rebut Manafort's knowledge of certain acts. It wasn't worth the risk in the defense's mind.

I'd bet the conspiracy charges still get submitted too. People get turned down for loans all the time, yes, but how many submit the loans supported by fraudulent statements? Submitting such a charge would in no way make "the mere application for a loan into a criminal act."

Just my guesses, though. We'll find out when the transcripts are released.

Ultimately, I think Manafort gets convicted today after a few hours of deliberations. If deliberations spill over into tomorrow, then the chance for a hung jury increases.

Jury deliberations were always the periods I hated. Your client is on pins and needles and looking to you for reassurance. Then the bailiff pokes his head in to inform you that they jury has requested X documents or transcripts of testimony of Y witness and you have to read the tea leaves as to whether that is good for your client or bad but remain non-committal in front of them. I always had a couple decks of cards to pass the time and take their mind off of the trial. Sometimes that worked okay, sometimes it didn't.

aggiehawg said:

---

Jury deliberations were always the periods I hated. Your client is on pins and needles and looking to you for reassurance. Then the bailiff pokes his head in to inform you that they jury has requested X documents or transcripts of testimony of Y witness and you have to read the tea leaves as to whether that is good for your client or bad but remain non-committal in front of them. I always had a couple decks of cards to pass the time and take their mind off of the trial. Sometimes that worked okay, sometimes it didn't.

---

The worst is when you start getting jury questions that make it obvious that things aren't breaking your way.

I think your instinct is right with respect to Manafort. If the jury comes back today, its an open-and-shut guilty verdict. If not, they're hung. I'll be shocked if he's actually acquitted. The political fallout alone for Mueller would be devastating.

blindey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Jury deliberations were always the periods I hated. Your client is on pins and needles and looking to you for reassurance. Then the bailiff pokes his head in to inform you that they jury has requested X documents or transcripts of testimony of Y witness and you have to read the tea leaves as to whether that is good for your client or bad but remain non-committal in front of them. I always had a couple decks of cards to pass the time and take their mind off of the trial. Sometimes that worked okay, sometimes it didn't.

---

The worst is when you start getting jury questions that make it obvious that things aren't breaking your way.

I think your instinct is right with respect to Manafort. If the jury comes back today, its an open-and-shut guilty verdict. If not, they're hung. I'll be shocked if he's actually acquitted. The political fallout alone for Mueller would be devastating.

---

I might never stop laughing at team Mueller, if they lose.

However, I'm with you and will be shocked if he walks on everything.

I doubt there will be any fallout for Mueller.

If there"s a hung jury, it will be spun as a "Trumpster" on the jury that would not listen to reason. Of course, this will be further evidence of how "unhinged" the right is.

The MSM already has the story written.

That may be why they threw the kitchen sink at him. Either to try for a plea-down by intimidation, or to hope that the jury will see all those charges, and decide that even if they can't quite prove most beyond a reasonable doubt, surely something criminal existed in all that so maybe find him guilty of the most minor or plausible ones.

Whens lunch said:

---

I doubt there will be any fallout for Mueller.

If there"s a hung jury, it will be spun as a "Trumpster" on the jury that would not listen to reason. Of course, this will be further evidence of how "unhinged" the right is.

The MSM already has the story written.

---

Finding a Trumpster in the jury pools of the EDVA is a long row to hoe. They try that spin and it will be laughable, at 79% democratic.

That being said Manafort walking on acquittal is near zero chance, I'd say hung jury is close to 50/50 based on the case that team Mueller put on. I think Gates hurt the prosecution way more than the media is playing it, and the prosecution knew it would be, that's why they hinted to the judge that they may not even call him to testify, and the judge called their bluff and let them know that if they think they are going to try and go after any type of conspiracy without him, that he wouldn't even consider it.

Minimal sentence fine and back taxes are going to really be a tough pill to swallow over the $40 million dollar fee that went along with this. This could have been tried by the EDVA for a lot less. And Gates is next to worthless in the DC case now after this fiasco. His own admissions on top of that plea deal are not a good look. Curious if that plea deal is still good if they mistrial?

Looking at the polling on this I'm not sure Mueller gets much worse regardless of the outcome. They left will be furious when they don't deliver 300 years like the MSM has been hyping. <10 years will look like a wrist slap, and they will be triggered to no end.

Not sure how this tweet translates it's claim from this video, I must be missing something

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

He hasn't been fired or left DOJ, correct? He'll have a cadre of DOJ lawyers on the taxpayers' dime along with him, if not.

As far as I know he's still there. He slid into David Laufman's slot after his sudden resignation around the last IG report.

Still on some pain medication after my injury so I'm a little off of my game. Sorry, if I am being a pain by asking questions to which I should know the answer.

(Hey! My grammar skills are still somewhat intact!)