The Manafort Indictment: Not Much There, and a Boon for Trump

[eohrnberger]

. . . .
And don't forget, removing the sanctions was the first thing trump was concerned about. they were "very specific" about leaving that out also.
. . . .

Trump lifting sanctions on Russia? Were they lifted?

Trump Signs Russian Sanctions Into Law, With Caveats - The ...https://The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia/.../world/europe/trump-russia-sanctions.html
Aug 02, 2017 · WASHINGTON — President Trump signed legislation on Wednesday imposing sanctions on Russia and limiting his own authority to lift them, but asserted that ...

Trump signs Russia sanctions bill - CNNPoliticsCNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos/2017/08/02/politics/donald-trump-russia-sanctions-bill
Aug 03, 2017 · Video embedded · President Donald Trump signed into law Wednesday morning legislation that levies new sanctions against Russia and restricts Trump's own ability to ease ...

Trump administration moves forward on Russia sanctions ...abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump...russia-sanctions-week-delay/...
Oct 26, 2017 · The Trump administration broke its silence on new Russia sanctions Thursday, sending to Capitol Hill a list of Russian entities that it will sanction ...

Apparently not. More sanctions were signed and put into place, apparently.

 

[Vern]

Trump's main issue with NATO was whether the member countries were paying their agreed upon 2% of their GDP for their own defense.

Eorhn, no one questions your ability to spin things to your satisfaction but the dossier predicted trump would “cajole” Nato. And the you seem to be forgetting (and no one questions your ability to do that either) that the republican platform was changed to russia’s benefit. And don’t forget trump called nato obsolete

Trump rattles NATO with 'obsolete' blast

Trump rattles NATO with 'obsolete' blast - CNNPolitics

And again I point out, if President Obama had said that, your’s and every conservative’s head would have exploded with obedient rage. And without the aid of a dossier predicting it I might add.

Trump lifting sanctions on Russia? Were they lifted?

the fact that the republican congress felt compelled to pass a bill blocking Trump from lifting sanctions should tell you how bad it was. Of course it tells you nothing. Why do you think the republican congress thought it was important to block trump from removing sanctions?

TRUMP WHITE HOUSE MADE SECRET EFFORTS TO REMOVE RUSSIA SANCTIONS

Trump White House Made Secret Efforts to Remove Russia Sanctions

 

[eohrnberger]

Eorhn, no one questions your ability to spin things to your satisfaction but the dossier predicted trump would “cajole” Nato. And the you seem to be forgetting (and no one questions your ability to do that either) that the republican platform was changed to russia’s benefit. And don’t forget trump called nato obsolete

Trump rattles NATO with 'obsolete' blast

Trump rattles NATO with 'obsolete' blast - CNNPolitics

And again I point out, if President Obama had said that, your’s and every conservative’s head would have exploded with obedient rage. And without the aid of a dossier predicting it I might add.



the fact that the republican congress felt compelled to pass a bill blocking Trump from lifting sanctions should tell you how bad it was. Of course it tells you nothing. Why do you think the republican congress thought it was important to block trump from removing sanctions?

TRUMP WHITE HOUSE MADE SECRET EFFORTS TO REMOVE RUSSIA SANCTIONS

Trump White House Made Secret Efforts to Remove Russia Sanctions

And who signed those sanctions into law?

At that point, he could have vetoed them outright or just failed to sign them (pocket veto I believe).
He did neither. He signed them.

Not sure arguing contrary to an actual action that was taken is very effective.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Trump White House Made Secret Efforts to Remove Russia Sanctions

Now connect the dots...

The Russian lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr. during last year’s election campaign says he offered her a clear quid pro quo at the meeting: dirt on Hillary Clinton in exchange for changes to a U.S. law.

Trump Jr. Offered Russian Lawyer a Deal for Hillary Dirt

 

[Vern]

And who signed those sanctions into law?

At that point, he could have vetoed them outright or just failed to sign them (pocket veto I believe).
He did neither. He signed them.

Not sure arguing contrary to an actual action that was taken is very effective.

eorhn, see how you again posted something because you wish it was true. Trump couldn't veto it. It passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3. Let that soak in. You really should ask yourself how you were unaware of such anoverwhelming vote. Anyhoo, we can safely conclude that congress (republicans and democrats) were determined to prevent Trump from doing anything concerning Russia. back to my question

Why do you think the republican controlled congress thought it was important to block trump from removing sanctions?

 

[eohrnberger]

eorhn, see how you again posted something because you wish it was true. Trump couldn't veto it. It passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3. Let that soak in. You really should ask yourself how you were unaware of such anoverwhelming vote. Anyhoo, we can safely conclude that congress (republicans and democrats) were determined to prevent Trump from doing anything concerning Russia. back to my question

Why do you think the republican controlled congress thought it was important to block trump from removing sanctions?

I do believe that the rule of law allows the president to veto legislation that arrives at this desk. Are you denying this?

 

[Fruityfact]

I do believe that the rule of law allows the president to veto legislation that arrives at this desk. Are you denying this?

And in the case Vern is outlining, a 6th grader would tell you you're wrong.

 

[eohrnberger]

And in the case Vern is outlining, a 6th grader would tell you you're wrong.

So the president is unable to veto legislation now? We both know that's not correct.

 

[Fruityfact]

So the president is unable to veto legislation now? We both know that's not correct.

You're telling me that the president can veto all legistation?

 

[eohrnberger]

You're telling me that the president can veto all legistation?

Yes, it is in his purview to do so, should he chose to do so.

Which is the point here, really. The President didn't chose to veto the additional Russia sanctions legislation, although he could have, should he have chosen to do so.
He didn't chose to do so.

 

[iguanaman]

Yes, it is in his purview to do so, should he chose to do so.

Which is the point here, really. The President didn't chose to veto the additional Russia sanctions legislation, although he could have, should he have chosen to do so.
He didn't chose to do so.

Because his veto would have been over-ridden and become law regardless. Please tell me that you knew that already. The problem now is Trump refuses to cooperate with the implementation of the law. It is obvious that he is still doing his masters bidding.

 

[eohrnberger]

Because his veto would have been over-ridden and become law regardless. Please tell me that you knew that already. The problem now is Trump refuses to cooperate with the implementation of the law.

Refuses?

It is obvious that he is still doing his masters bidding.

Meh. Not sure that's provable one way or another, at least not in a realistic factual sense.

 

[iguanaman]

Refuses?



Meh. Not sure that's provable one way or another, at least not in a realistic factual sense.

So you did know about the 3/4 vote that over-rides Presidential veto's and yet still made Trumps signing seem like it was proof that he wasn't beholding to Putin. How coy of you. What is "provable" is that the Trump Administration is dragging it's feet on the implementation of the ONLY significant piece of legislation that has reached his desk. Why is the question. Is it because he is derelict in his duty as President? It does not take a genius to figure it out but I will give you a chance at it. So tell me why you think it is?

 

[eohrnberger]

So you did know about the 3/4 vote that over-rides Presidential veto's and yet still made Trumps signing seem like it was because he wasn't beholding to Putin. How coy of you. What is "provable" is that the Trump Administration is dragging it's feet on the implementation of the ONLY significant piece of legislation that has reached his desk. Why is the question.

Yes, of course I know about the veto override. That too is in the laws.

"What is "provable" is that the Trump Administration is dragging it's feet on the implementation of the ONLY significant piece of legislation that has reached his desk."

You call it provable, but offer no proof. This make the question based on that conclusion "Why is the question" as premature.

 

[Fruityfact]

Yes, of course I know about the veto override. That too is in the laws.

.

It's really quite clear that you did not.

 

[eohrnberger]

It's really quite clear that you did not.

The question isn't whether there was, or would be, an override veto. Who knows? No one knows. There's only guesses from people.

The question is whether the president signed the legislation, the increased Russian sanctions, and he did sign it.

You can spin all you want, but it won't change the fact that he did sign it.

 

[Fruityfact]

The question isn't whether there was, or would be, an override veto. Who knows? No one knows. There's only guesses from people.
The question is whether the president signed the legislation, the increased Russian sanctions, and he did sign it.
You can spin all you want, but it won't change the fact that he did sign it.

Ah yes, I'm the one spinning. :doh

 

[eohrnberger]

Ah yes, I'm the one spinning. :doh

Well, yes, it seems you are.

The only point I'm making here is that Trump signed the legislation which authorized the imposition of sanctions against Russia. That's a fact. There's no avoiding it.

Aren't you pulling in whether there would be a veto override?
Aren't you pulling in the political situation surrounding his decision to sign or not?
Aren't you the one pulling in all these aspects which don't have a bearing on the fact that Trump signed the legislation?

All this to continue some Trump / Russia collusion which seems to have fallen pretty flat, all things considered, and yes, I know that Mueller's investigation isn't done yet.

 

[Deuce]

Well, yes, it seems you are.

The only point I'm making here is that Trump signed the legislation which authorized the imposition of sanctions against Russia. That's a fact. There's no avoiding it.

Aren't you pulling in whether there would be a veto override?
Aren't you pulling in the political situation surrounding his decision to sign or not?
Aren't you the one pulling in all these aspects which don't have a bearing on the fact that Trump signed the legislation?

All this to continue some Trump / Russia collusion which seems to have fallen pretty flat, all things considered, and yes, I know that Mueller's investigation isn't done yet.

Signing sanctions on Russia is meaningless if he refuses to actually implement them. Failing to do so is clearly favoring Russia for an as-yet undefined reason.

 

[eohrnberger]

Signing sanctions on Russia is meaningless if he refuses to actually implement them. Failing to do so is clearly favoring Russia for an as-yet undefined reason.

I would agree.

I did a Google search, didn't find anything, asked for a citation. You have one?

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk

 

[Oreo]

Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading.

The Paul Manafort indictment is much ado about nothing . . . except as a vehicle to squeeze Manafort, which is special counsel Robert Mueller’s objective — as we have been arguing for three months (see here, here, and here). Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading on Count One (page 23 of the indictment). This case has nothing to do with what Democrats and the media call “the attack on our democracy” (i.e., the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election, supposedly in “collusion” with the Trump campaign). Essentially, Manafort and his associate, Richard W. Gates, are charged with (a) conspiring to conceal from the U.S. government about $75 million they made as unregistered foreign agents for Ukraine, years before the 2016 election (mainly, from 2006 through 2014), and (b) a money-laundering conspiracy.



Paul Manafort Indictment: No Signs of Trump-Russia ?Collusion? | National Review

You apparently don't know about the newly released court documents. Here is Rachel Maddow with the newly released court documents in hand that do tie Manafort & Gates to Russia. Manafort & Gates are wearing ankle bracelets, restricted to home, church and they're lawyers office.



And the biggest problem for this adminstration is this George Papadopolous who pleaded guilty. He was arrested in July the day after Manafort's house was raided, got a plea deal from Mueller, and was doing a "dial a crook" probably wired to the hilt, from July until October 30th.
Papadopoulos' guilty plea is much bigger problem for Trump than the Manafort indictment - CNNPolitics
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/mueller-russia-investigation.html?_r=1

 

[Vern]

I do believe that the rule of law allows the president to veto legislation that arrives at this desk. Are you denying this?

see eorhn, you're not here to have an honest and intelligent discussing of the facts. You're here to flail at obfuscate them and try to deflect from them. See how you look for any excuse to no deal with the facts. Of course Trump could veto it. I should have said "it would have done no good to veto it". Why cant you deal with my point instead of looking for any excuse not to. Now if you can manage to somehow get past that, lets discuss the fact the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3. Let that soak in. You really should ask yourself how you were unaware of such an over whelming vote and why you are determined to not address it.

Since we can safely conclude that congress (republicans and democrats) were determined to prevent Trump from doing anything concerning Russia.Why do you think the republican controlled congress thought it was important to block trump from removing sanctions? (here's a tip, avoiding the facts or pretending they're a meme doesn't change the facts)

 

[Vern]

All this to continue some Trump / Russia collusion which seems to have fallen pretty flat, all things considered, and yes, I know that Mueller's investigation isn't done yet.

So we can safely conclude you have a special definition of "flat". The vile and disgusting "stand down" lies fell flat after 8 investigations. Trump's investigation into President Obama's birth certificate fell flat. Even the "Hillary's email" fell flat (but not to conservatives). So how do you conclude an ongoing investigation that has 1 guilty plea and two indictments "fallen flat"? I would say its "on track". If the guilty plea and indictments aren't enough proof of "on track" then just look how the conservative media is bleating on about "uranium". Seems like they think its on track also.

and on a side note, I bet the uranium investigation falls flat.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

It doesn't work that way. You have to give evidence that corroborates your testimony otherwise your testimony is worthless considering you were offered a deal. I know nothing about law, I'm speaking from common sense.

True. However court is more theatrics than facts and you get to direct. A lot of times the few facts could represent several stories. Allowing the person telling the story a major advantage in who the real bad guy is when more than one person is involved. Throw our media some key information and they shout witch and their is no problem burning someone at the stake.

 

[eohrnberger]

see eorhn, you're not here to have an honest and intelligent discussing of the facts. You're here to flail at obfuscate them and try to deflect from them. See how you look for any excuse to no deal with the facts. Of course Trump could veto it. I should have said "it would have done no good to veto it". Why cant you deal with my point instead of looking for any excuse not to. Now if you can manage to somehow get past that, lets discuss the fact the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3. Let that soak in. You really should ask yourself how you were unaware of such an over whelming vote and why you are determined to not address it.

Since we can safely conclude that congress (republicans and democrats) were determined to prevent Trump from doing anything concerning Russia.Why do you think the republican controlled congress thought it was important to block trump from removing sanctions? (here's a tip, avoiding the facts or pretending they're a meme doesn't change the facts)

That's sure ironic coming from you Vern.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk