• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paul Manafort Sues Special Counsel Robert Mueller, DOJ Over Russia Probe

lurchadams

lurchadams

Zoom Warrior
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
31,842
Reaction score
15,818
Location
Seattle Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...65ce4b0b0e5a7aa8d98?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

WASHINGTON — Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort filed suit against special counsel Robert Mueller, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the Department of Justice on Wednesday ― a suit that experts quickly said has little chance of success.

In his complaint, Manafort alleges that Mueller’s investigation “diverged from its focus on alleged collusion between the Russian government and President Trump’s campaign.”
Click to expand...

I guess Clinton should sue Ken Staar, since lying about sex had nothing to do with Whitewater?
 
lurchadams said:
I guess Clinton should sue Ken Staar, since lying about sex had nothing to do with Whitewater?
Click to expand...

That's an old canard. He didn't "lie about sex," he committed perjury in court and was also found in contempt. That's why his law license was suspended and why he later surrendered it.

And it's Ken Starr, not 'Staar.'
 
worksforpigs said:
That's an old canard. He didn't "lie about sex," he committed perjury in court and was also found in contempt. That's why his law license was suspended and why he later surrendered it.

And it's Ken Starr, not 'Staar.'
Click to expand...

Thanks for the spelling lesson. Allow me to provide you with a grammar lesson: Perjury means lying.

I stand by my opinion. Sex was way outside of the scope of Whitewater about which the Trump worshippers in this thread are complaining.
 
lurchadams said:
Thanks for the spelling lesson. Allow me to provide you with a grammar lesson: Perjury means lying.

I stand by my opinion. Sex was way outside of the scope of Whitewater about which the Trump worshippers in this thread are complaining.
Click to expand...

Perjury is perjury and you fixate on what he perjured himself about instead?
 
worksforpigs said:
Perjury is perjury and you fixate on what he perjured himself about instead?
Click to expand...

I can see you're pretty angry about the lying about sex and persist in ignoring the point of my original post. Not much I can do about that. Please feel free to rant on, though.
 
worksforpigs said:
Perjury is perjury and you fixate on what he perjured himself about instead?
Click to expand...

How many men have you met who would be honest about cheating on their wives in public, where their wives could hear it?
 
lurchadams said:
I can see you're pretty angry about the lying about sex and persist in ignoring the point of my original post. Not much I can do about that. Please feel free to rant on, though.
Click to expand...

Speculating I was experiencing a certain emotion while typing doesn't validate your contention that it was about "lying about sex" as opposed to perjury in a court of law.
 
OldFatGuy said:
How many men have you met who would be honest about cheating on their wives in public, where their wives could hear it?
Click to expand...

This isn't about simply lying as this person is trying to imply. It's about perjury in a court of law, as well as contempt of court.
 
OldFatGuy said:
How many men have you met who would be honest about cheating on their wives in public, where their wives could hear it?
Click to expand...

If it was irrelevant, the questions wouldn't have been allowed. However, the questioning about Lewinski was related to a sexual harassment case -- and therefore pretty relevant. I'm sure most people can understand him lying to his wife, but this was lying under oath, and he knew better.
 
Mueller might have to read The Constitution on this one.
 
Obviously the law suit a cover for others on the hot seat, yet to be indicted and a plea for someone with the power to pardon them all. The DOJ has given Mueller the right to fully investigate Manaforte, et al.
 
worksforpigs said:
This isn't about simply lying as this person is trying to imply. It's about perjury in a court of law, as well as contempt of court.
Click to expand...

If they hadn't asked if he had sex with that girl, there would have been no perjury. So, reality is, it was all a waste of time, taxpayer money, and a deflection for the president to do his job, not to mention the chumps in congress who didn't accomplish diddly squat.

Look, it they really wanted to impeach Bill, they should have done it for bad taste in women. He was surrounded by a load of groupie models, and what better pick up line than "Hey, I'm the president, want to do me?"

Take your self righteous somewhere else. It's long been irrelevant.
 
dcsports said:
If it was irrelevant, the questions wouldn't have been allowed. However, the questioning about Lewinski was related to a sexual harassment case -- and therefore pretty relevant. I'm sure most people can understand him lying to his wife, but this was lying under oath, and he knew better.
Click to expand...

Rudy Giuliani said before the question was asked, "Don't go there."

This was in public, and no man wants to slap his wife in the face, in public. These inquisitors knew exactly what they were doing, and what to expect. It was all a damn disgrace. These guys all wanted revenge for Nixon, and they all thought this was the moment.
 
Parrish said:
Obviously the law suit a cover for others on the hot seat, yet to be indicted and a plea for someone with the power to pardon them all. The DOJ has given Mueller the right to fully investigate Manaforte, et al.
Click to expand...

And Manaforte reserves the right to fight back as he sees fit.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Rudy Giuliani said before the question was asked, "Don't go there."

This was in public, and no man wants to slap his wife in the face, in public. These inquisitors knew exactly what they were doing, and what to expect. It was all a damn disgrace. These guys all wanted revenge for Nixon, and they all thought this was the moment.
Click to expand...

Nope. In a closed deposition, and I don't believe Giuliani was there. He made his public statements, lying to the public, later. I'm sure it was uncomfortable for him. If he would have thought about it before he dropped his pants for women who worked with/for him, the story would be very different.
 
worksforpigs said:
Speculating I was experiencing a certain emotion while typing doesn't validate your contention that it was about "lying about sex" as opposed to perjury in a court of law.
Click to expand...

What an incredibly stupid semantic game to play!



He never said it was "lying about sex" as opposed to perjury. He simply chose to describe it as "lying about sex". In no way does that mean he was saying it wasn't perjury.

He also made the point that what he lied about had absolutely nothing with what he was supposed to be investigated about. In no way does that mean he was saying it wasn't perjury.




Why do so many posters play these ridiculous games?
 
OldFatGuy said:
If they hadn't asked if he had sex with that girl, there would have been no perjury. So, reality is, it was all a waste of time, taxpayer money, and a deflection for the president to do his job, not to mention the chumps in congress who didn't accomplish diddly squat.
Click to expand...

He was found guilty of both perjury and contempt of court. Period.

Take your self righteous somewhere else. It's long been irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Factual accuracy isn't "self righteous" [sic].

You must follow a rather odd clock if you think a standing president committing perjury and obstruction is "irrelevant."

Isn't, after all, the big bluster against Trump right now for alleged violations of standards of conduct, if not the law itself?
 
Mr Person said:
What an incredibly stupid semantic game to play!



He never said it was "lying about sex" as opposed to perjury. He simply chose to describe it as "lying about sex". In no way does that mean he was saying it wasn't perjury.
Click to expand...

It was worded that way in an attempt to downplay the perjury and obstruction. Equating lying about sex to committing perjury on the stand while sworn in a court is quite a semantic game.
 
worksforpigs said:
It was worded that way in an attempt to downplay the perjury and obstruction. Equating lying about sex to committing perjury on the stand while sworn in a court is quite a semantic game.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval rating ever so it is apparent that the American people think Starr had no business asking him that question. He certainly didn't. It was an invasion of privacy.
 
dcsports said:
Nope. In a closed deposition, and I don't believe Giuliani was there. He made his public statements, lying to the public, later. I'm sure it was uncomfortable for him. If he would have thought about it before he dropped his pants for women who worked with/for him, the story would be very different.
Click to expand...

Monica never filed any complaints against Clinton and it was by mutual consent between 2 adults. The pain the GOP felt after that debacle was well deserved.
 
iguanaman said:
Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval rating ever so it is apparent that the American people think Starr had no business asking him that question. He certainly didn't. It was an invasion of privacy.
Click to expand...

Sure he did. Again, he was accused of sexual misconduct -- dropping his pants and requesting a Lewinski. The fact he made a habit of this was absolutely relevant.
 
iguanaman said:
Monica never filed any complaints against Clinton and it was by mutual consent between 2 adults. The pain the GOP felt after that debacle was well deserved.
Click to expand...

That's REALLY iffy. Lewinski was a subordinate, and that's considered to carry an implied pressure. He's VERY lucky she stood by him.

But the thing is, she wasn't the only one, but one in a string of such behavior. Paula Jones said he did the same thing with her, and it wasn't welcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom