Mueller is flipping another Trump staffer

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Donald Trump admitted to collusion a long time ago. The only thing that's still in question is whether or not he committed a crime while doing so (of course he is known to have committed other, unrelated crimes).

I do not know to what admission you are alluding. Have you a reference?

Originally posted by @moonbus
Innocent until proven guilty. I await the result of Mueller’s investigation.

Donald Trump is a compulsive liar and has been for decades.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal presumption as regards charged crimes; it does not effect the undeniable truth that Trump is a liar of truly epic proportions.

Originally posted by @moonbus
I do not know to what admission you are alluding. Have you a reference?

Are you familiar with the meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower between Russians pedalling information they claimed would damage Hillary Clinton and top Trump campaign officials including his son and son in law? Are you aware that Trump helped prepare an official statement denying that the meeting was for such a purpose? Are you aware the participants have admitted in sworn testimony, backed by e-mails, that it was?

Originally posted by @no1marauder
Donald Trump is a compulsive liar and has been for decades.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal presumption as regards charged crimes; it does not effect the undeniable truth that Trump is a liar of truly epic proportions.

...the undeniable truth that Trump is a liar of truly epic proportions.
As opposed to, say, you.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]...the undeniable truth that Trump is a liar of truly epic proportions.
As opposed to, say, you.[/b]

As opposed to virtually anyone on this board, with the possible exception of whodey, yes.

Originally posted by @moonbus
I do not know to what admission you are alluding. Have you a reference?

I was alluding to what no1 just mentioned in response to your post. In the extremely unlikely event that Trump senior was not aware of the Trump Tower meeting as it happened, he still tried to help cover it up. This attempted cover-up is a matter of public record.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I was alluding to what no1 just mentioned in response to your post. In the extremely unlikely event that Trump senior was not aware of the Trump Tower meeting as it happened, he still tried to help cover it up. This attempted cover-up is a matter of public record.

Trump admits that meetings took place. He denies collusion.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
Are you familiar with the meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower between Russians pedalling information they claimed would damage Hillary Clinton and top Trump campaign officials including his son and son in law? Are you aware that Trump helped prepare an official statement denying that the meeting was for such a purpose? Are you aware the participants have admitted in sworn testimony, backed by e-mails, that it was?

Trump admits that meetings took place. Proving collusion is another matter. That is for courts to decide. I await their decision.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Trump admits that meetings took place. He denies collusion.

He admits colluding. He doesn't call it collusion.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
He admits colluding. He doesn't call it collusion.

I guess you are reading different news reports than I am. Here is my source:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43093260

As I read that article, Trump and his close aids admit that meetings took place, but deny collusion. There is a difference between meeting and collusion, just as there is a difference between killing and murder. The difference is to be determined by a court of law, not the press or popular opinion much less a chess-web-forum. Mr. Mueller's investigation is not over yet; further indictments may yet be handed down. Even so, an indictment is not a conviction. Due process is to be observed.

Personally, I think Trump is a jackass, and the parallels to the Nixon administration's lies and prevarications are disturbing, but I'm presuming innocence, not because I like or support Trump (I don't) but because that's how the rule of law works.

Originally posted by @moonbus
I guess you are reading different news reports than I am. Here is my source:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43093260

As I read that article, Trump and his close aids admit that meetings took place, but deny collusion. There is a difference between meeting and collusion, just as there is a difference between killing and murder. The difference ...[text shortened]... nce, not because I like or support Trump (I don't) but because that's how the rule of law works.

Imagine that someone says they went to a popular fast-food restaurant chain, noted for its logo with a yellow, rounded "M" and clown mascot and ate an iconic meal including a minced-meat patty enveloped in bread.

Would it be accurate to say they admitted to going to McDonalds and had a hamburger there even if they deny going to McDonalds for a hamburger?

Did Donald Trump admit to committing a crime according to the shaky standards of the U.S. "justice" system? Not that I know of. Did he admit to collusion? Yes.

Originally posted by @mchill
While the Trump supporters jump up and down, sniveling about Hillary Clinton,, trying keep the focus off the Mueller investigation, Robert Mueller is busy doing his job

Rick Gates, former deputy campaign chairman may be the guy who brings the entire criminal operation down. Yesterday we got even more confirmation that Gates is cutting a deal with Robert M ...[text shortened]... /www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/rick-gates-new-attorney-mueller-russia-investigation/index.html

I'm reminded when Obama tried to fill his cabinet. None of them paid their taxes either.

1. Obama’s nominee to chair the National Intelligence Council, Chas Freeman, withdrew over questions about payments from the Saudi Arabian government, business ties to the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp., and negative statements he made about U.S. support for Israel. After he resigned he issued a combative public statement blaming the “Israel lobby” for “character assassination.” 



2. White House “Green Jobs” czar Van Jones resigned after he it was discovered he signed a statement in support of a 9/11 “Truther” group. 



3. Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) withdrew his nomination to become Health and Human Services Secretary after it was discovered he failed to properly pay his taxes. 



4. Nancy Killefer, Obama’s nominee to serve as the government’s chief performance officer, withdrew due to tax problems.




5. Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) withdrew his nomination to become Commerce Secretary because of an ongoing investigation into whether he doled out government contracts in exchange for campaign money. 



6. White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers resigned after posing for photos at a White House dinner that a couple crashed through security to attend.




7. Jonathan Z. Cannon, nominated to serve as deputy director at the Environmental Protection Administration, withdrew over questions about a defunct non-profit, America’s Clean Water Foundation, where he served as a board member. In 2007, EPA auditors accused the non-profit of mismanaging $25 million in taxpayer funding.




8. Jide Zeitlin, Obama’s nominee to serve as U.S ambassador to the United Nations for management and reform withdrew his name while being accused of identify fraud and improper business practices. 



9. Erroll Southers, Obama’s nominee to serve as director of the Travel Security Administration, withdrew after refusing to answer questions about collective bargaining and false testimony he presented to Congress.




10. Maj. Gen. Robert A. Harding, Obama’s second nominee to service as director of the Travel Security Administration, withdrew his name after it was discovered he received “service disabled veteran” status for sleep apnea.

And the kicker was Tim Giethner, head of the entire IRS did not pay his taxes properly either.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6704526

The only difference is, he was still appointed to his position even though everyone knew he cheated on his taxes.

Keep in mind, Al Capone was sent to jail because he did not pay his taxes either. Just imagine if the FBI actually did their job and snooped into Hillary and her charitable fund to check out the money laundering and tax situation there what they would find.

This only proves to me that the entire establishment is lawless and the only ones held accountable are those not accepted by the establishment.

Keep in mind that this whole investigation was justified because of suspected collusion with Russia. A FISA warrant was issued even though it was now proven to be baseless, and now they want to use this whole investigation to go after people who don't pay taxes?

Very telling.

Watch out America! The US federal government can now issue a FISA warrant against any US citizen and use it as the bases of finding anything you've done wrong in your entire life, that is, if they want you off the streets for any reason.

We now life in a lawless police state.

Originally posted by @moonbus
I guess you are reading different news reports than I am. Here is my source:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43093260

As I read that article, Trump and his close aids admit that meetings took place, but deny collusion. There is a difference between meeting and collusion, just as there is a difference between killing and murder. The difference ...[text shortened]... nce, not because I like or support Trump (I don't) but because that's how the rule of law works.

Yes, there is a difference between a "meeting" and "collusion" - the meeting was the place where this particular act of collusion took place:

The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.

He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

Four days later, after a flurry of emails, the intermediary wrote back, proposing a meeting in New York on Thursday with a “Russian government attorney.”

Donald Trump Jr. agreed, adding that he would most likely bring along “Paul Manafort (campaign boss)” and “my brother-in-law,” Jared Kushner, now one of the president’s closest White House advisers.

On June 9, the Russian lawyer was sitting in the younger Mr. Trump’s office on the 25th floor of Trump Tower, just one level below the office of the future president.

Over the past several days, The New York Times has disclosed the existence of the meeting, whom it involved and what it was about. The story has unfolded as The Times has been able to confirm details of the meetings.

But the email exchanges, which were reviewed by The Times, offer a detailed unspooling of how the meeting with the Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, came about — and just how eager Donald Trump Jr. was to accept what he was explicitly told was the Russian government’s help.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html

It was in response to this story that a statement was released, which the Donald helped prepare, claiming that the meeting was only about adoption policies towards Russian children:

Trump's lawyers said at first that he was not involved in and did not know about the meeting. A few weeks later, however, The Washington Post reported that Trump had overruled his advisers and personally "dictated" Trump Jr.'s first statement about it. That statement had to be amended several times after it emerged that Trump Jr. took the meeting after he was offered dirt on Clinton, and after he was informed that it was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

http://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-recalled-witness-from-trump-tower-russia-meeting-obstruction-of-justice-2018-1

Personally, I would be rather surprised if Trump, Jr. isn't eventually indicted (he may already have been but the indictment may be sealed at this time). The indictments announced Friday clearly indicate that Russian attempts to influence the election were crimes and "any Americans who had knowledge of the Russian activity participated in a criminal endeavour and consequently could be vulnerable to prosecution."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43093260

The last point is important; it would make little sense for Mueller to indict a bunch of Russians who are never likely to see the inside of a US courtroom other than to establish that what they did were crimes and any Americans who knowingly aided these crimes is also criminally liable.

Originally posted by @whodey
I'm reminded when Obama tried to fill his cabinet. None of them paid their taxes either.

1. Obama’s nominee to chair the National Intelligence Council, Chas Freeman, withdrew over questions about payments from the Saudi Arabian government, business ties to the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp., and negative statements he made about U.S. suppo ...[text shortened]... his name after it was discovered he received “service disabled veteran” status for sleep apnea.

This "what about Obama" crap isn't going to work except on right wing partisan shills like yourself.