Author Topic: US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread (Read 4442862 times)

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #23800 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:05:17 PM »

Quote from: aygart on September 14, 2018, 05:02:08 PM

A link to what?

Did you read the first item in the mandate? I guess you believe the Russians in the meeting had nothing to do with the Russian government?

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #23801 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:07:29 PM »

Quote from: aygart on September 14, 2018, 05:03:38 PM

You are taking to yourself about his mandate since no one here besides you is discussing it.

Of course you don't want to talk about the SC mandate. That is why you are clueless when it comes to what they are about. If you don't understand the mandate you are lost.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #23802 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:08:43 PM »

Quote from: aygart on September 14, 2018, 05:04:57 PM

What is more likely is that it gave a broad definition of related matters.

What are you smoking. The original mandate gave the broad strokes. That wasn't good enough for this 100% homer judge.

aygart · « **Reply #23803 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:24:24 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on September 14, 2018, 05:08:43 PM

What are you smoking. The original mandate gave the broad strokes. That wasn't good enough for this 100% homer judge.

Apparently it is not as good as yours

ilherman · « **Reply #23804 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:27:49 PM »

Chaim, since you really don't understand for some strange reason some simple stuff I will try to explain it really well.

Lets take it step by step lets see if it could work.

Chaim, if someone would ask you what you think, there is someone who is suspected of having done tax fraud. There are 2 options. 1) appoint a SC and have the whole country be up with it and should cost the taxpayers 50mm. 2) Refer it to his local federal court and let the prosecutors there do what it is their job to do every day.

What would the answer be?

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #23805 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:31:21 PM »

Quote from: ilherman on September 14, 2018, 05:27:49 PM

Chaim, since you really don't understand for some strange reason some simple stuff I will try to explain it really well.

Lets take it step by step lets see if it could work.

Chaim, if someone would ask you what you think, there is someone who is suspected of having done tax fraud. There are 2 options. 1) appoint a SC and have the whole country be up with it and should cost the taxpayers 50mm. 2) Refer it to his local federal court and let the prosecutors there do what it is their job to do every day.

What would the answer be?

LOL

aygart · « **Reply #23806 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:42:06 PM »

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/09/14/the-manafort-plea-is-pardon-proof/
One point she makes is that this plea deal just paid for most of the cost of the investigation.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #23807 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:48:00 PM »

Quote from: aygart on September 14, 2018, 05:42:06 PM

One point she makes is that this plea deal just paid for most of the cost of the investigation.

"most"?

aygart · « **Reply #23808 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:50:09 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on September 14, 2018, 05:48:00 PM

"most"?

46/55ths

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #23809 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:51:57 PM »

Quote from: aygart on September 14, 2018, 05:50:09 PM

46/55ths

Not that this will help you but here it goes anyway:"and he paid for the entire investigation."

aygart · « **Reply #23810 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:55:10 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on September 14, 2018, 05:51:57 PM

Not that this will help you but here it goes anyway:"and he paid for the entire investigation."

ETA: not sure where I got 55m from. Current estimates are at about 25-30m in which case it is paid to date but unknown what the final total will be.

gingyguy · « **Reply #23811 on:** September 14, 2018, 05:55:33 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on September 14, 2018, 04:59:10 PM

I guess you forgot about the Trump tower meeting. That isn't a link?

it would be counted as a link if there is a conviction for that . but since meanwhile the only conviction was for things unrelated to the mandate , which until that changes does kind of say witch hunt. If the SC would set his sights on you or anyone else here for that matter im pretty confident he would find something , but that wont justify him looking at you in the first place

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #23812 on:** September 14, 2018, 06:08:28 PM »

Quote from: gingyguy on September 14, 2018, 05:55:33 PM

it would be counted as a link if there is a conviction for that . but since meanwhile the only conviction was for things unrelated to the mandate , which until that changes does kind of say witch hunt. If the SC would set his sights on you or anyone else here for that matter im pretty confident he would find something , but that wont justify him looking at you in the first place

You are confusing link with illegal/conviction.
You need to understand the mandate. Every guilty plea or conviction has 100% to do with the mandate.