Mueller WILL NOT Present Collusion Evidence At Manafort Trial

The investigation just needs to go a few more months until the elections. Throw how some red meat as to give the appearance of something
nefarious that the Trump administration is guilty of.
The result hopefully will be maximum damage in the midterms with no time to refute with the actual truth.
Straight from the democrat playbook.
People are SO DONE with this, though...even Democrats are no longer talking about 'collusion with Russians' any more.

I believe what they are doing now is trying to run out the clock - the statute of limitations - on their own crimes they have uncovered during their witch hunt.
 
Hillary colluded with and paid foreign spies and Russians for a propaganda-filled report she illegally used in an election


I told you, Queasy....LOCK HER UP........
What the fuck is taking you guys so damn long?.........................LOL
 
I told you, Queasy....LOCK HER UP........
What the fuck is taking you guys so damn long?.........................LOL

upload_2018-7-9_12-30-27.jpeg


For one, you crazy b@stard, I don't have the power to do so. If I did her ass would be in prison by now....right next to Barry, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Holder, Lynch, Mills, Abedin, ......
 
Those counts are for bank fraud during times Manafort was not involved with the campaign.

Read the new charges against Manafort, Gates
ty for the link, I just read them, and you're right, he committed bank fraud while Trump's campaign manager, but it had nothing to do with the campaign....
I love selective outrage. Libs are full of shit.

EXCLUSIVE: Podesta Didn’t Register As A ‘Foreign Agent’ When He Represented A Bank With Ties To Russian Spy Agencies
 
Hard to present what you do not have because it does not exist but you sure can conjur up a real witch hunt when a third of America is immature, unproductive, angry, and emotionally addled.
 
Ok, now show exactly how that meeting violated any of those provisions. It was the campaign that was solicited, to my knowledge the campaign didn't provide so much as cab fare to anyone in the meeting and nothing of value was exchanged. So where's the violation?


Forget it Tigger.......All is "well" on that cesspool that is Trump's administration.

You morons are too fucking drunk in the orange kool-aid anyway......LOL


In other words, you painted yourself into a corner with your lies and will attack anyone who points that out. Typical of a regressive hack. LMAO


.
 
He can’t present what doesn’t exist.

Actually there's proof but your just a trump tard lol.
That's "you're," not "your," you fucking retard.

If your a trump supporter you can't say anything.

I didn’t vote for Trump. And while people who oppose you might be silenced in your paradise, we live in the United States of America where free speech is protected, so yes he and countless other Trump supporters can say whatever the heck they want. And praise God for that right
 
The meeting was supposed to be about dirt involving Clinton.


Thank you, moron......THAT is the very definition of collusion.........It matters not if the meetings was successful....Find someone with more brain cells than you have to explain it to you.........LOL

What I find totally amazing is that while you on the left think that the Trump campaign seeking out "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the middle of a political campaign is somehow illegal but that Hillary Clinton's campaign paying someone to make up fake "dossiers" about Trump and leak them to a compliant media isn't! How does that work exactly, Nat? :confused-84::confused-84::confused-84::confused-84:

Let’s be clear. They think the hillary campaign paying Russians for a fake dossier is alright
 
Pretty standard. A prosecutor is not going to subject anything to discovery that is not necessary. Anyone stating that it is because such evidence does not exist is grasping at straws.
 
Ok, now show exactly how that meeting violated any of those provisions. It was the campaign that was solicited, to my knowledge the campaign didn't provide so much as cab fare to anyone in the meeting and nothing of value was exchanged. So where's the violation?


Forget it Tigger.......All is "well" on that cesspool that is Trump's administration.

You morons are too fucking drunk in the orange kool-aid anyway......LOL

Funny how you try to act tough and pretend to be smart and the second anyone calls you to put up or shut up and it’s beneath you to even attempt to support your inane statements
 
Stop acting like that meeting was illegal, it wasn't.


For you and other IGNORANT Trump cult members

Federal law prohibits a foreign national from giving anything of value to a campaign engaged in a U.S. election. It’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to do so, or even to knowingly provide substantial assistance in receiving something of value.

Foreign nationals | FEC
The SC has ruled that information does not count as "something of value." Once again, if anyone is guilty of acquiring services from foreigners, it's Hillary Clinton. Hillary paid for the Fusion GPS "dossier." In your zeal to point the finger at Trump, all you sleazy lying dumbass snowflakes ignore that central fact.

It boggles the mind how utterly immune to the facts you idiots are.
 
Pretty standard. A prosecutor is not going to subject anything to discovery that is not necessary. Anyone stating that it is because such evidence does not exist is grasping at straws.
Prosecuters don't get to decide what evidence the defence is allowed to see, moron.
 
Mueller has no evidence of 'collusion'. Hard to present something that never existed...

Gee.........Isn't Mueller going after "obstruction of justice"????

BUT, nice try, Queasy.....Haniity would be proud.......LOL
In other words "never mind about that collusion stuff we were all bleating incessantly about for over a year."
 
Prosecuters don't get to decide what evidence the defence is allowed to see, moron.
Of course they do, if it is not evidence pertinent to the charges. Therefore, it is not evidence at all. The statement that you clearly min derstood delineates this for you, as it is referred to evidence of something else, not the charges against manafort.

You are so excitable!
 
The SC has ruled that information does not count as "something of value."
Not in this context, it has not. And the FEC most certainly does treat information as something of value.
Only if you pay for it, dumbass, and that's exactly what Hillary did. Listening to someone talk is not a violation of FEC regulations. And yes, that is the rule in this context.
 
Prosecuters don't get to decide what evidence the defence is allowed to see, moron.
Of course they do, if it is not evidence pertinent to the charges. Therefore, it is not evidence at all. The statement that you clearly min derstood delineates this for you, as it is referred to evidence of something else, not the charges against manafort.

You are so excitable!
No they don't, moron. Judges decide what the defence is entitled to see. Thousands of convictions get thrown out every year because the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence.

I fail to understand why you are constantly pontificating about the law when you obviously don't know the first thing about it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top