The Latest: Trump praises Manafort during jury deliberations

  • Thread starter Thread starter HCTC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We waterboard our own people I’m training … so is it torture or merely unpleasantness.
 
MonteRCMS said:
We waterboard our own people I’m training … so is it torture or merely unpleasantness.
Click to expand...
If it is not torture, then by all means, Mueller should be free to perform it. If it is torture, he shouldn’t. The citizenship on the recipient of waterboarding has no bearing on whether or not it is torture.
 
He should be tempered, deliberate, presidential in his speech. He ought to communicate remembering dignity of the Office of President.
 
It is torture, it is one of the non-negotiables. Christians can never condone torture, but, I think you know that already.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Manifort is being tried for things that Rosenstein decided did not constitute crimes years ago, and declined to prosecute. Mueller resurrected them. Obviously, you agree with Mueller’s assessment, not Rosenstein’s.
Click to expand...
Rosenstein OK’d Mueller’s investigation of Manafort on the current charges and approved the indictment.
There is zero basis for assuming that “Manfort is being tried for things that Rosenstein decided did not constitute crimes years ago”, rather than the current investigation unearthed more and other evidence of criminal activity against him.
 
TheLittleLady said:
He should be tempered, deliberate, presidential in his speech. He ought to communicate remembering dignity of the Office of President.
Click to expand...
On this we agree. I also expect a president to limit his/her actions to the enumerated powers.
 
Last edited:
There is no reason to think somehow there is new objective evidence that makes it a crime when it did not do so when Rosenstein himself investigated it years ago. The two differences now are that it was not a politically motivated case 12 years ago when Rosenstein investigated it, and less reason to pressure an alleged co-conspirator into committing perjury for the prosecution.
 
Ridgerunner said:
There is no reason to think somehow there is new objective evidence that makes it a crime when it did not do so when Rosenstein himself investigated it years ago.
Click to expand...
  1. There has been further investigation.
  2. Rosenstein, whatever his alleged prior judgement was based on, approved this indictment,
 
What’s the “new evidence” generated by that “further investigation”? Why do you think there’s anything new at all other than Gates turning on Manafort, if even that’s new?

Go ahead and tell us what’s known now that wasn’t known 12 years ago when Rosenstein saw no reason to prosecute.

Rosenstein approved investigation of any crime Mueller could find. He didn’t cite a single one when he gave Mueller authorization to “go find whatever crimes you can against Trump and those who worked for him”.
 
JonNC said:
40.png
TheLittleLady:
He is trying to influence the jurors and also softening up the ground for a planned pardon if the jury does not listen.
Click to expand...
In other words, you think Trump should be denied speech rights?
Click to expand...
Sequestering a jury is not an instance of infringing on anyone’s free speech rights. It is really strange that this has not happened in this case.
 
No. Probably “everything he had” is still confidential. You’re the one who is saying there is somehow something new. What is it?
 
Ridgerunner said:
You’re the one who is saying there is somehow something new. What is it?
Click to expand...
No… This discussion started with your suggesting that there wasn’t anything uncovered in the latest investigation that was not known at the time of the much earlier investigation. And now, you stipulate not knowing what was there. That’s enough to reveal the lack of foundation beneath your suggestion.
 
Last edited:
There’s nothing new other than Mueller’s getting Gates to turn on Manafort. Rosenstein decided 12 years ago not to prosecute on these same charges. That’s just a known fact. Nobody question s that.

If you think there’s something new, out with it.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
There’s nothing new other than Mueller’s getting Gates to turn on Manafort. Rosenstein decided 12 years ago not to prosecute on these same charges. That’s just a known fact. Nobody question s that.

If you think there’s something new, out with it.
Click to expand...
How can you tell whether there is nothing new if most of the evidence is confidential?
 
Not fascinating at all. Some 12 years ago, Rosenstein looked into these very same allegations and concluded there was no basis for prosecution. That a known fact.

Now, Mueller is prosecuting some of those very same things. You say the difference is the Mueller investigation as if somehow that produced something Rosenstein didn’t have. But when asked to tell what that is (other than the Gates perjury) you have nothing to say other than challenging me to prove a universal negative, which you know nobody can do.

You have nothing to back up your assertion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top