Manafort Trial

[RiverDog]

By the way, the numbers for the released prisoners and reengagement on the battlefield may have been manipulated by the Obama DNI (Clapper). Check out this entire article. https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/jan/25/cory-gardner/how-many-released-guantanamo-bay-prisoners-commit-/

Well then I guess you'd better tell Trump's press secretary because he's the one that had to pull Trump's foot out of his mouth and corrected his statement for him. Besides, you're arguing about one statement out of hundreds if not thousands.

[idhawkman]

If that's the best you can do, ie defend Trump by virtue of the actions of others, then all I can say is that two wrongs don't make a right. It's an ages old, tired excuse given by children that got in trouble for staying out too late (but dad, everyone else was out late, too!). I honestly thought that you could do better than that.

And like I said before, points of which you keep missing, Trump's dishonesty and lack of credibility is only one of several reasons why I'll never vote for the POS.

Nah, I figured if you didn't want to do the work, why should I?

BTW, the dems are claiming a 90% turnout for that vote in Ohio. If they have a 90% turnout and still lost, that is not spin...

[idhawkman]

Well then I guess you'd better tell Trump's press secretary because he's the one that had to pull Trump's foot out of his mouth and corrected his statement for him. Besides, you're arguing about one statement out of hundreds if not thousands.

Did you read the article?

[idhawkman]

Uh-oh, don't look now but US announces that Russia was behind poisoning that dad and daughter in the UK and will be announcing new sanctions against Russia. This just goes to show that Trump is in the hip pocket of Putin....

[burrrton]

Uh-oh, don't look now but US announces that Russia was behind poisoning that dad and daughter in the UK and will be announcing new sanctions against Russia. This just goes to show that Trump is in the hip pocket of Putin....

As I said elsewhere: I'll start worrying when is actions match his rhetoric. Right now, they don't appear to come close.

[Aseahawkfan]

Remember this if nothing else.

After 13 hours with Americans in harms way, not one when turned or one prop spun to help those guys who were hung out to dry. As you all know, I've worked side by side with the same folks that were hung out to dry both the military one and the diplomatic ones. In my book, this was an unforgiveable inaction by the powers in charge.

Happened before, it will happen again. You know how many stories there are of Washington politicians knowing that we were going to get hit or some member of the military attacked? And we don't know the truth. This is nothing new.

It is now very apparent that the Intel agencies were weaponized against a political foe in our elections. This tears at the very fabric of our nation. Again, an unforgiveable act.

I thought you read about Hoover and his weaponization of the FBI against political opponents. Intel agencies and law-enforcement and judicial system been weaponized. Not sure there was ever a period when they weren't. That's why the press and the like cries when appointing judges with an enemy party in office. The government usually changes lots of advisers out in key intel spots to ensure they have one of their guys in the position. They wouldn't do that in the first place if they didn't want a guy in the position that would do things their way.

I know all these Clinton sycophants and excuse-makers have forgotten how Janet Reno killed or obstructed investigations against Clinton, but I haven't forgotten. Those that pretend the Democrats in any way possess the moral high ground are as delusional as they think Trump supporters are. Democrats corrupt to the core.

Also consider that the President and his cabinet get a daily brief of which many times they can not mention why they do certain things or let on that they know certain things.

C'mon now. Even you must have noticed some of Trump's advisers looking clueless in press conferences because Trump said something over here, but didn't tell his adviser in place. I've seen it once with his intel leader and once with his trade adviser.

Finally, I would love to know what is so grossly over exaggerated or lied about by Trump. Are there any specifics or just inuendo and hearsay?

Seriously? He's lied about a ton of stuff. His inauguration crowd size for one obvious one. The fact he slept with Stormy Daniels and paid her off which he backtracked on. Likely not knowing about Trump Tower meeting to get dirt. And numerous exaggerations and lies about basic American history and politics. Then there was the birther garbage he promoted like it was true. He lies because he doesn't care about the truth. He's a salesman that will tell you whatever you want to hear to make the sale. That's how he works. Fortunately for him the vast majority of the American people don't care about the truth either as long as someone is telling them what they want to hear. I don't look at you one of those people myself. I think you're just supporting Trump because Trump for all his lies is the only doing something about things that need be fixed like this trade deficit, immigration, government welfare programs, and the like. Who else is supporting what Trump supports?

Even Bush Jr. was a centrist with no interest in taking on the establishment other than to stick by the wars he started.

Edited: Forgot to add that the Tarrifs are working. The Chinese market is down 27% over the last 4 months while our GDP grew at 4.1% and the Dallas and Atlanta feds are predicting over a 5% GDP growth rate for Q3. China is now starting to talk to us.

The stock market is down. China does need us more than we need them right now. Good time to push. I hope to see some actual deals soon.

It's a sad state of affairs when the only guy willing to go to bat for changes America needs is a guy that is so damn volatile, combative, and easily attacked. We'll see how he weathers the storm. The Democrats are infested with socialists looking to push reforms we can't afford. We can barely afford medicare for our old citizens, but we want to insure all our citizens with their unhealthy eating habits are insured without making them pay more. I have to pay for the guy that wants to smoke, weight 300 lbs. eating twinkies, and sit on his couch watching TV. I would like insurance to be affordable and portable, but not heavily government subsidized and control. There has to be a way to do that using the market.

[idhawkman]

Most of what you wrote Asea I agree with, however, I have some basic problems with this section.

Seriously? He's lied about a ton of stuff. His inauguration crowd size for one obvious one.

Both sides have lied about crowd sizes - in the grand scheme of things, this is not what makes someone "distrust" him.

The fact he slept with Stormy Daniels and paid her off which he backtracked on. Likely not knowing about Trump Tower meeting to get dirt. And numerous exaggerations and lies about basic American history and politics.

I didn't know we were now living in Argentina where you are guilty until proven innocent. A settlement does not admit guilt especially in this case where the settlement was offered just to avoid the bogus claim which would have distracted the campaign from staying on message.

"Likely not knowing..." again, guilty until proven innocent? There is no proof he knew about this at all but the media would have you believe it to be true, wouldn't they?

"...and numerous exaggerations..." Again, unspecified innuendo with no facts but a whole lot of media fed conjecture.

Then there was the birther garbage he promoted like it was true.

This whole thing could have been avoided had Obama been more forthcoming at the start of it all.

He lies because he doesn't care about the truth.

C'mon now, you are now claiming to know what he thinks and what he does and doesn't care about?

He's a salesman that will tell you whatever you want to hear to make the sale. That's how he works. Fortunately for him the vast majority of the American people don't care about the truth either as long as someone is telling them what they want to hear.

I don't think the American people care about exaggerations and boasts as long as the man is calling it like "THEY" see it.

I don't look at you one of those people myself. I think you're just supporting Trump because Trump for all his lies is the only doing something about things that need be fixed like this trade deficit, immigration, government welfare programs, and the like. Who else is supporting what Trump supports?

Even Bush Jr. was a centrist with no interest in taking on the establishment other than to stick by the wars he started.

I agree with most of this but I would offer that it takes a man like Trump to push back on the establishment and normal way of doing things. I think this is also part of why so many Americans give him latitude on the exaggerations and tweets, etc. In the military, we used to say there are two armies, one for show that does parades and rifle drills, etc. Then you have the mud crawling bad asses that actually do the dirty work. The latter is mostly alpha males who also carrouse around, talk dirty, and a whole lot more that I can't post here. The parade soldiers just don't make it through the grueling qualifications to make it to the fighting army.

The stock market is down. China does need us more than we need them right now. Good time to push. I hope to see some actual deals soon.

It's a sad state of affairs when the only guy willing to go to bat for changes America needs is a guy that is so damn volatile, combative, and easily attacked. We'll see how he weathers the storm. The Democrats are infested with socialists looking to push reforms we can't afford. We can barely afford medicare for our old citizens, but we want to insure all our citizens with their unhealthy eating habits are insured without making them pay more. I have to pay for the guy that wants to smoke, weight 300 lbs. eating twinkies, and sit on his couch watching TV. I would like insurance to be affordable and portable, but not heavily government subsidized and control. There has to be a way to do that using the market.

Again, I think it takes the kind of person that Trump is to do what has to be done. Not many people could have weathered the storms that Trump has already come through and keep on trekkin'. He's only got another 6 and a half years to go but I think he will survive the storm.

[RiverDog]

Did you read the article?

No, and I don't intend to.

You wanted to know why it is that I think Trump has taken dishonesty to exponentionally higher levels than other pols and asked for three examples and I gave you four, and the best defense you could come up with was that other pols have lied so that makes it OK for Trump to do the same, which is as lame and childish of an excuse as one can imagine.

At least as far as this issue of his personal credibility goes, you're not going to change my opinion of Trump. There's just too much evidence out there for you to try to spin, so you're wasting your time.

[idhawkman]

No, and I don't intend to.

You wanted to know why it is that I think Trump has taken dishonesty to exponentionally higher levels than other pols and asked for three examples and I gave you four, and the best defense you could come up with was that other pols have lied so that makes it OK for Trump to do the same, which is as lame and childish of an excuse as one can imagine.

At least as far as this issue of his personal credibility goes, you're not going to change my opinion of Trump. There's just too much evidence out there for you to try to spin, so you're wasting your time.

And thus the problem with division. When credible evidence is provided to refute an assertion by someone with TDS they resort to the vaguearies of "Too much evidence out there" without providing that evidence. Add to that the idea that saying my crowd size is bigger than yours is worse than telling a mother and father that their son is dead because of a video which they know is false when they tell that lie. In addition they compound that lie to justify not sending help to try and save those sons.

[RiverDog]

BTW, the dems are claiming a 90% turnout for that vote in Ohio. If they have a 90% turnout and still lost, that is not spin...

They haven't lost yet. There might not be a winner declared in that race for another couple of weeks.

Trump won that district by 11% in 2016 and it hasn't gone to a D in 30 years. There's dozens of other districts across the nation that are held by R's that are alot more competitive than that one in Ohio, so I can see why the Dems are felling pretty good about their chances in November.

Ohio is a bellweather state. It hasn't gone to the losing POTUS candidate since 1960.

[idhawkman]

They haven't lost yet. There might not be a winner declared in that race for another couple of weeks.

Trump won that district by 11% in 2016 and it hasn't gone to a D in 30 years. There's dozens of other districts across the nation that are held by R's that are alot more competitive than that one in Ohio, so I can see why the Dems are felling pretty good about their chances in November.

Ohio is a bellweather state. It hasn't gone to the losing POTUS candidate since 1960.

Again, the only way the Dems win is to lie to the voters about how they are going vote. We all know that once they are elected they will vote how Pelosi or Schumer tell them to vote. The Dem in the race you are pointing out continued to tell everyone that he didn't know who he would vote for as Speaker until they finally cornered him into saying he would vote for whomever his party put up for Speaker. Had he been honest about that up front, the election wouldn't even be close. He also stated he supported many of Trumps agenda items but we all know that is a lie because Pelosi won't let him vote for those items if he's elected.

[Hawktawk]

Uh-oh, don't look now but US announces that Russia was behind poisoning that dad and daughter in the UK and will be announcing new sanctions against Russia. This just goes to show that Trump is in the hip pocket of Putin....

Trump was dragged kicking and screaming into these sanctions by extreme pressure from his own party, cabinet and intelligence people. These poisonings were clearly tied to russia many months ago and the actions were only taken when the woman involved died.

More pressing was the need to repair the political damage from the very public BJ he gave to Putin in Helsinki dissing our top intelligence officials and saying he had "no reason to believe Putin had interfered" in our elections. That was such a serious gaffe there was a meeting between he and the top brass in the situation room upon his return to the US after which he came up with a lame excuse that he had misspoken and used a double negative meaning to say he had no reason to believe he "hadn't"interfered . Another obvious lie to any reasonable person taking the statement in context, referencing Coates affirmation of meddling and Putin's "strong denial" prior to the statement.

The other day all the top brass, Bolton, Coates, Wray, Pompeo etc held a press conference saying that Russia continues to meddle approaching the midterms in the strongest of language. Later that evening Trump called the russian meddling and investigation a "hoax" to his adoring crowd of idiots at one of his carnival barker lie fests. Hes still not on board with the facts he's well aware of and never will be.

Sorry if im shrill but I want americans picking our government whatever the composition of it might be, not the man who if not the most evil man on the planet, surely evil but certainly the most dangerous. Call me crazy 52 percent of america agrees with my assessment of the man and his presidency and hes done nothing to expand his base.

[RiverDog]

Trump was dragged kicking and screaming into these sanctions by extreme pressure from his own party, cabinet and intelligence people. These poisonings were clearly tied to russia many months ago and the actions were only taken when the woman involved died.

Didn't the Trump Administration join other nations in expelling Russian diplomats due to the poisonings? It would be pretty hard not to issue sanctions if they concluded that there was enough evidence to expel a bunch of diplomats over it.

More pressing was the need to repair the political damage from the very public BJ he gave to Putin in Helsinki dissing our top intelligence officials and saying he had "no reason to believe Putin had interfered" in our elections. That was such a serious gaffe there was a meeting between he and the top brass in the situation room upon his return to the US after which he came up with a lame excuse that he had misspoken and used a double negative meaning to say he had no reason to believe he "hadn't"interfered . Another obvious lie to any reasonable person taking the statement in context, referencing Coates affirmation of meddling and Putin's "strong denial" prior to the statement.

That's a possibility.

The other day all the top brass, Bolton, Coates, Wray, Pompeo etc held a press conference saying that Russia continues to meddle approaching the midterms in the strongest of language. Later that evening Trump called the russian meddling and investigation a "hoax" to his adoring crowd of idiots at one of his carnival barker lie fests. Hes still not on board with the facts he's well aware of and never will be.

Another example of Trump not singing from the same page of music as others within his confidants. There is no direction to his administration, no compass for others to follow. He doesn't plan, doesn't communicate with his subordinates, he just wings it and says the first thing to pop into his mind. That's why I fell that that he's a poor manager.

Sorry if im shrill but I want americans picking our government whatever the composition of it might be, not the man who if not the most evil man on the planet, surely evil but certainly the most dangerous. Call me crazy 52 percent of america agrees with my assessment of the man and his presidency and hes done nothing to expand his base.

I wouldn't say that 52% of Americans agrees with your assessment that Trump is the most evil man on the planet. You're going over the top again.

[Aseahawkfan]

Trump was dragged kicking and screaming into these sanctions by extreme pressure from his own party, cabinet and intelligence people. These poisonings were clearly tied to russia many months ago and the actions were only taken when the woman involved died.

More pressing was the need to repair the political damage from the very public BJ he gave to Putin in Helsinki dissing our top intelligence officials and saying he had "no reason to believe Putin had interfered" in our elections. That was such a serious gaffe there was a meeting between he and the top brass in the situation room upon his return to the US after which he came up with a lame excuse that he had misspoken and used a double negative meaning to say he had no reason to believe he "hadn't"interfered . Another obvious lie to any reasonable person taking the statement in context, referencing Coates affirmation of meddling and Putin's "strong denial" prior to the statement.

The other day all the top brass, Bolton, Coates, Wray, Pompeo etc held a press conference saying that Russia continues to meddle approaching the midterms in the strongest of language. Later that evening Trump called the russian meddling and investigation a "hoax" to his adoring crowd of idiots at one of his carnival barker lie fests. Hes still not on board with the facts he's well aware of and never will be.

Sorry if im shrill but I want americans picking our government whatever the composition of it might be, not the man who if not the most evil man on the planet, surely evil but certainly the most dangerous. Call me crazy 52 percent of america agrees with my assessment of the man and his presidency and hes done nothing to expand his base.

So you decide your morals by polls? So if 80% of people voted that you were the most evil man on the planet, they would be right absent any evidence to support it? And you want your opinion taken seriously?

Most dangerous? So guys like Kim Jon Un isn't more dangerous? Or Vladimir Putin, Trump's puppetmaster in your mind and that of many others? Or the leaders in ISIS? Or various child killers we are deluged with on a daily basis?

I do call you crazy. A guy that uses polls to support his opinion rather than a real barometer of what constitutes good and evil. I guess if I poll people and 51% says it's so, then it's so. If I go find a poll that says 54% of some of group says God doesn't exist, does that make it true? You see the fallacy of your statements yet? It would be nice if you did.

It's really hard to take a guy seriously that was so rabidly conservative not long ago. Now a guy you don't like it is in office and you're suddenly supporting socialists and people that have done a great deal of damage to this nation to allow someone like Trump to take office like Bill Clinton who is very much like a more well-spoken Trump and you want anyone to take you seriously? You're pretty much selling out all your values because of your hatred of a single man, willingly supporting ideals you were rabidly against not long ago just to grind an axe against a single man.

You're tossing everything you believe in down the toilet to attack Trump and make other bad people seem better than they are. The hypocrisy is making you seem wishy-washy. All I see from you is hatred of Trump and a willingness to cast aside all morality or truth to grind your axe along with I guess 52% of Americans in whatever poll you looked at.

[Aseahawkfan]

Another example of Trump not singing from the same page of music as others within his confidants. There is no direction to his administration, no compass for others to follow. He doesn't plan, doesn't communicate with his subordinates, he just wings it and says the first thing to pop into his mind. That's why I fell that that he's a poor manager.

Until I see Russian mind control devices or voter hacking. I consider this an attempt by both parties to manufacture another enemy to grind against to justify their military spending and pursuit of world domination.

And secondarily as payback for Trump's birther stance and attacks on Hilary. As dirty as I think the Clintons are, they are powerful, ruthless, and smart. They pay back anyone that goes against them with their government connections, which are plentiful. Clintons are no one to screw around with. That's why Hilary could torpedo Bernie Sanders, use her email server, screw up as many times as she did as Secretary of State, yet still obtain the Democratic nomination with her snake of a husband and may take the nomination again.

Trump and Hilary/Bill are a couple of snakes going after each other hard. Obama is part of the Clinton side and likely has his own power base within the government and Democratic Party to pay back the birther attacks on him. That's the part of the Russian Spy business I don't mind as Trump needed to be paid back for his birther BS. That whole birther stance against Obama was as manufactured as this Russian meddling thing except to less of an overall effect. Democrats are doing a much better job of making Trump into The Kremlin Candidate and attempting to force him out. If they win the midterm elections, Trump going to be in a lot of trouble.

[RiverDog]

Another example of Trump not singing from the same page of music as others within his confidants. There is no direction to his administration, no compass for others to follow. He doesn't plan, doesn't communicate with his subordinates, he just wings it and says the first thing to pop into his mind. That's why I fell that that he's a poor manager.

Until I see Russian mind control devices or voter hacking. I consider this an attempt by both parties to manufacture another enemy to grind against to justify their military spending and pursuit of world domination.

And secondarily as payback for Trump's birther stance and attacks on Hilary. As dirty as I think the Clintons are, they are powerful, ruthless, and smart. They pay back anyone that goes against them with their government connections, which are plentiful. Clintons are no one to screw around with. That's why Hilary could torpedo Bernie Sanders, use her email server, screw up as many times as she did as Secretary of State, yet still obtain the Democratic nomination with her snake of a husband and may take the nomination again.

Trump and Hilary/Bill are a couple of snakes going after each other hard. Obama is part of the Clinton side and likely has his own power base within the government and Democratic Party to pay back the birther attacks on him. That's the part of the Russian Spy business I don't mind as Trump needed to be paid back for his birther BS. That whole birther stance against Obama was as manufactured as this Russian meddling thing except to less of an overall effect. Democrats are doing a much better job of making Trump into The Kremlin Candidate and attempting to force him out. If they win the midterm elections, Trump going to be in a lot of trouble.

You're response to my quote doesn't seem to line up with the content. The point I was trying to make was about the Administration's disorganization and chaotic, contradicting public statements between Trump and members of his staff. It's one of the reasons why I will never vote for him, ie his managerial skills. Trump's tendency to make decisions by the seat of his pants gives me cause to worry about how he would react during a genuine crisis.

I don't necessarily disagree with your take. The whole birther crap IMO was designed to help dove tail into Trump's anti immigrant stances and to motivate his base. It made little difference to him if he was manfacturing it, he knew he would hit a chord with his followers. I was in Hawaii when that state finally put an end to it.

Just reading the tea leaves, I do think that the R's are in trouble in the House, that they'll lose control of it in November. The math in the Senate makes it a virtual impossibility for the Dems to take it over in 2018, too many seats to defend in red states and not enough R's up for re-election. The dirty little secret of the 2016 election was that the Dems missed a golden opportunity in the Senate and will have to pay the price this November for that gawd awful POTUS candidate of theirs.

But we'll see. We're still about 10-11 weeks away from the election and campaigns don't generally get cranked up until after Labor Day.

You're preaching to the choir when it comes to the Clintons.

[Aseahawkfan]

You're response to my quote doesn't seem to line up with the content. The point I was trying to make was about the Administration's disorganization and chaotic, contradicting public statements between Trump and members of his staff. It's one of the reasons why I will never vote for him, ie his managerial skills. Trump's tendency to make decisions by the seat of his pants gives me cause to worry about how he would react during a genuine crisis.

I don't necessarily disagree with your take. The whole birther crap IMO was designed to help dove tail into Trump's anti immigrant stances and to motivate his base. It made little difference to him if he was manfacturing it, he knew he would hit a chord with his followers. I was in Hawaii when that state finally put an end to it.

Just reading the tea leaves, I do think that the R's are in trouble in the House, that they'll lose control of it in November. The math in the Senate makes it a virtual impossibility for the Dems to take it over in 2018, too many seats to defend in red states and not enough R's up for re-election. The dirty little secret of the 2016 election was that the Dems missed a golden opportunity in the Senate and will have to pay the price this November for that gawd awful POTUS candidate of theirs.

But we'll see. We're still about 10-11 weeks away from the election and campaigns don't generally get cranked up until after Labor Day.

You're preaching to the choir when it comes to the Clintons.

My response was to the Russian election tampering in general. They haven't produced a shred of evidence that a meaningful effect on the election occurred. No voter hacking or what not. Just launching a media or misinformation campaign is insufficient. Another agenda that is being served by this Russian election interference is the regulation of social media. Now that I think about it, that may be the goal. Both parties don't like the freedom inherent in social media. With this whole election tampering fallacy, they can use to press for greater regulation of social media. Damn, that seems to be what they're doing. I missed that off the top of my head.

Trump's election was heavily fueled by social media. Social media was an unregulated means of information that the government and ruling parties couldn't easily regulate. If they sell the American public that Trump is a Russian puppet and that Russia influenced the election through social media, they can use that as a lightning rod to heavily regulate social media. Thus gaining a measure of control over a means of information delivery they weren't yet able to control like they do the press.

Damn. These politicians are so much slicker than we give them credit for. They are going to convince us the American people Trump is some Russian puppet without any substantial evidence of hacking, just an influence campaign. Then leverage that fear into the regulation of social media to their advantage to further control information delivery. Slick, very slick. And it seems to be working at the moment.

[RiverDog]

My response was to the Russian election tampering in general. They haven't produced a shred of evidence that a meaningful effect on the election occurred. No voter hacking or what not. Just launching a media or misinformation campaign is insufficient. Another agenda that is being served by this Russian election interference is the regulation of social media. Now that I think about it, that may be the goal. Both parties don't like the freedom inherent in social media. With this whole election tampering fallacy, they can use to press for greater regulation of social media. Damn, that seems to be what they're doing. I missed that off the top of my head.

I pretty much agree. Unless they can come up with evidence of changing votes, tampering with the tally, or tampering with voter registration lists and doing so in Trump's favor, I'm not going to get too excited. If some moron can be influenced by the Russians, then that's his/her problem, not the Russians. Sadly, the vast majority of voters are a bunch of dupes anyway, which probably has more to do with Trump's victory than anything else.

Trump's election was heavily fueled by social media. Social media was an unregulated means of information that the government and ruling parties couldn't easily regulate. If they sell the American public that Trump is a Russian puppet and that Russia influenced the election through social media, they can use that as a lightning rod to heavily regulate social media. Thus gaining a measure of control over a means of information delivery they weren't yet able to control like they do the press.

That probably helps explain why the pundits were so far off. This was the first election where social media played a large roll. Trump was able to bypass the mainstream media and talk directly to his followers, Hillary not so much. Since as the mainstream media generally favors Dems, there wasn't the need for her to bypass it like there was with Trump.

Damn. These politicians are so much slicker than we give them credit for. They are going to convince us the American people Trump is some Russian puppet without any substantial evidence of hacking, just an influence campaign. Then leverage that fear into the regulation of social media to their advantage to further control information delivery. Slick, very slick. And it seems to be working at the moment.

It's like what they say about war. Too many generals fight according to the tactics used in the previous war instead of the present one. I suspect that the Dems will react this fall to Trump's tactics that served him so well in 2016 and use social media to help rally their forces.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's like what they say about war. Too many generals fight according to the tactics used in the previous war instead of the present one. I suspect that the Dems will react this fall to Trump's tactics that served him so well in 2016 and use social media to help rally their forces.

Not just the Dems, but the Republicans as well. The Libertarian movement and the Republican Party being taken over by people with an agenda other than what mainstream Republicans want was all fueled by social media. The regulation put in place by the government and the social pressure from corporations has caused them to eliminate many of the voices, extreme and not so extreme, from social media platforms. The Republicans don't like the loss of control either. A lot of people don't pay attention to how close the Republican and Democrats really are because of how each party sells the conflict. Folks like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul are outliers in their own parties, while mainstream Democrats and Republicans are a few shades left and right of each other.

As is usual with these things, multiple agendas are being served.

1. Democrats are attacking the president and all Republicans stoking hate and mistrust to fuel their future elections in all components of government.

2. Both parties are using this to push regulation of social media including pressure on corporations to censure speech that doesn't line up with what each party is selling the American mainstream. This has led to the censure of many voices on social media that are deemed offensive creating a PC environment meant to protect corporate profit and images rather than forward free speech.

3. Both parties are manufacturing an enemy to fuel military spending and the development of intelligence tools for monitoring, limiting, and regulating social media and the interaction of private individuals on it. A new Russian boogeyman is born with Middle Eastern terrorism running out of steam to continue the fear-mongering.

4. Republicans may be able to purge or lessen the power of a competing Populist/Libertarian/Constitutionalist movement looking to take power within the Republican Party by eliminating or lessening their voice from social media with pressure on corporations and the sellers of social media.

I watch these things occur and am awed at times by how effective powerful people and groups are at manipulating the masses. They can take grassroot movements and turn them in different directions. Even the Metoo# and Timesup# movement is being used to assassinate careers (some deserving, others questionable) and attack enemies from the president on down. This things swell up and people grab opportunities where they can to use them to their advantage.

[idhawkman]

Prosecution has rested and now it is time for the defense to make their case.

Some are saying in the press that the govt. failed to make their case and that the defense won't call any witnesses. I think that would be a mistake. That said, if they don't call a witness and they are exhonerated it will be a severe black eye for Mueller's team especially after holding Manafort in solitary confinement.

[RiverDog]

The defense has rested its case and did not call any witnesses, including the defendant. That generally means one or both of two things: That the defense is supremely confident of the outcome and/or they are afraid that cross examination will damage the credibility of their client.

I'm a little surprised that they did not call on Manafort to answer the charges as there was a lot of evidence introduced that will now go to the jury uncontested. But I guess the defense feels that they can discredit the evidence in their closing arguments.

They need a unanimous vote by the jury in order to convict, so I suppose the defense's tactics makes sense in that all they need is to introduce reasonable doubt into the mind of one juror out of 12.

[idhawkman]

I think it is a risky move and they should have at least called Rosenstein to ask why he didn't choose to press charges back in 2005. One thing that came out a day or so ago was that the prosecution decided not to indict the company but only Manafort. Add to that the idea that Gates (Manafort's partner) who admitted to much of the same crimes they are charging Manafort with is going to walk scott free. (well, one small charge of perjury or something). Gates was originally facing 100+ years but made a plea. Manafort is facing 305 years for all the charges.

To me it seems like they threw everything they could against the wall to see what would stick against Manafort. If I was a juror, I'd be hard pressed to see the "Justice" in convicting one guy to 305 years when the other doesn't do a single day in jail. Not to mention the solitary confinement that Manafort has been in already. I think I would see this for what it is, twisting the arm to get him to sing/compose a story against the POTUS.

[RiverDog]

I haven't followed this case closely enough to offer a guilty/innocent opinion. They do have a lot of evidence, but one has to weigh the evidence against the rules/law, and I simply don't have enough interest to dig that deeply in it. All I can say is that being that the bar is so high, ie a 12-0 vote required for conviction, that if he's convicted, there's a pretty high chance that he is, indeed, guilty. It's damn hard to get 12 people to agree on what time to break for lunch let alone a guilty verdict.

[idhawkman]

Unfortunately, in this day and age, being guilty or not rarely has an impact on a verdict or sentence. E.g. it usually comes down to how much money you have to pay your attorney's fees and how good the attorney is.

I'm thinking that if he is found guilty by this jury, he'll appeal to a higher court and challenge the validity of the Mueller special counsel in its entirety. I think they are rolling the dice on not calling any witnesses but if he's acquitted, he can't be charged again (double jeopardy). So little to lose if you are Manafort (appeal a guilty verdict or walk on a not guilty verdict). It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

[RiverDog]

Unfortunately, in this day and age, being guilty or not rarely has an impact on a verdict or sentence. E.g. it usually comes down to how much money you have to pay your attorney's fees and how good the attorney is.

Yea, but it's better than the alternative. There's always been a disparity between the quality of attorneys, but it's not always simply a matter of how much they get paid.

I'm thinking that if he is found guilty by this jury, he'll appeal to a higher court and challenge the validity of the Mueller special counsel in its entirety. I think they are rolling the dice on not calling any witnesses but if he's acquitted, he can't be charged again (double jeopardy). So little to lose if you are Manafort (appeal a guilty verdict or walk on a not guilty verdict). It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Sure, he'll appeal it if he's found guilty. But the damage will have been done with regard to DJT and the R's prospects in the mid terms. The Dems will use a guilty verdict to add fuel to their fire as many challengers are running on an anti corruption, anti insider platform, using Trump's "drain the swamp" as their motto.

Agreed about the defense rolling the dice by not calling any rebuttal witnesses. They're relying on the jury believing the defense attorney's summation. You know what they say about lawyers: You can tell when they're lying as their lips are moving.

[idhawkman]

More often than not, the quality of the attorney is what determines if you are found guilty of something to put you in jail or plea to a much smaller charge and no jail.

I disagree with you that the damage will be done to DJT on this though. This is a trial on money charges from 2005 and 2013/14 way before he even knew Trump. A conviction will stir up the Republicans and confirm that they are on a witch hunt trying to get him to flip on Trump. That will drive record numbers of Republicans to the polls in the mid term. It would be better for the dems for this to be a hung jury and not rile up the republican base and Trump supporters.

[RiverDog]

I disagree with you that the damage will be done to DJT on this though. This is a trial on money charges from 2005 and 2013/14 way before he even knew Trump. A conviction will stir up the Republicans and confirm that they are on a witch hunt trying to get him to flip on Trump. That will drive record numbers of Republicans to the polls in the mid term. It would be better for the dems for this to be a hung jury and not rile up the republican base and Trump supporters.

It doesn't matter when the crimes (or supposed crimes) occurred. If Manafort is found guilty, it will be rock solid proof that Trump had as a key figure in his campaign a man that is corrupt and the Dems will use it to their advantage in the midterms. The White House already senses their vulnerability and is trying to distance DJT from Manafort by trivializing his role in the campaign. It will put the R's on the defensive in a contest that already favors the party that is out of power.

If Manafort is found guilty, It's going to be damn hard for a logical mind to rationalize a 12-0 verdict and call the trial a which hunt. That would be like us trying to rationalize a 12 touchdown shutout loss and argue that we're #1.

[idhawkman]

If Manafort is found guilty, It's going to be damn hard for a logical mind to rationalize a 12-0 verdict and call the trial a which hunt. That would be like us trying to rationalize a 12 touchdown shutout loss and argue that we're #1.

Actually it would be more like saying that since we suffered a 12 TD loss to team A and Team A beat Team B that we would lose even worse to Team B. No relation to what will happen.

[RiverDog]

Actually it would be more like saying that since we suffered a 12 TD loss to team A and Team A beat Team B that we would lose even worse to Team B. No relation to what will happen.

Huh? I don't quite follow your logic.

Manafort was a major player in Trump's campaign. Whether or not they will be successful in doing so, the Dems will attempt to tie as close as a link as possible between and Trump/R's, and the fact that the White House is already distancing themselves from him is evidence that it's a real threat to Trump and his/R's prospects in the midterms.

And I don't go along with your theory that a hung jury will enrage and inspire Trump's core to turn out in November. Typically the party that enjoys a majority has a difficult time motivating their base in midterm elections and a no decision in a trial of a campaign official just doesn't stink enough to flush them out, especially now that Trump is disowning him.

[burrrton]

Manafort was a major player in Trump's campaign.

It was a rather important time iirc, but he was only part of the campaign for a few months, wasn't he?

[RiverDog]

It was a rather important time iirc, but he was only part of the campaign for a few months, wasn't he?

If a few is 5 months, then yes, you are correct. And you're right, it was a critical time, in the last stages of the primaries and after Trump became the presumptive nominee. Manafort was part of the Trump campaign from May through August of 2016. But the relationship goes back a lot further, way back to the '80's. All one has to do is look at Manafort's timeline and they can deduce that he was a Trump confidant. That's why the White House is going into overdrive to distance Trump from him. If he's convicted, he'll become a huge liability.

[Aseahawkfan]

If a few is 5 months, then yes, you are correct. And you're right, it was a critical time, in the last stages of the primaries and after Trump became the presumptive nominee. Manafort was part of the Trump campaign from May through August of 2016. But the relationship goes back a lot further, way back to the '80's. All one has to do is look at Manafort's timeline and they can deduce that he was a Trump confidant. That's why the White House is going into overdrive to distance Trump from him. If he's convicted, he'll become a huge liability.

I guess we'll. I never heard of Manafort until he was convicted. The visible Trump allies during his campaign were his children, other politicians like Giuliani and the New Jersey guy, and Kelly Anne Conway. Manafort is being sold big now that he is an impediment to Trump. I'd bet money the average voter didn't know who he was until he was brought up on charges. No doubt the Democrats will push Manafort hard and he may have an effect, but he's not a big or known figure with the regular voters. You could poll most Americans and his name is only big now that he's on trial. He wouldn't have been picked out by anyone prior to that. He's just some guy that had some part in the Trump campaign. He wasn't a face man or anything like that. I'm still not sure what his roll was as many people seem to be campaign managers when it is convenient for them to be so and nobody when not. Manafort was a nobody prior to his indictment.

[idhawkman]

It is a ridiculous claim that Trump knew Manafort before he hired him to run the campaign through the RNC convention.

The reason Lewindowski was let go and Manafort was brought on board is because Manafort knew how to count and manipulate the votes on the RNC floor. At the time, Trump's campaign was worried that the delegates he had won were going to be manipulated into a floor vote or some other crazy thing by the never trumpers.

That was it. In fact, there was news stories about Trump asking other consultants if he made a good choice picking Manafort based on Manafort's experience with the Reagan campaigns.

[RiverDog]

I never heard of Manafort until he was convicted.

You mean arraigned. He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

The visible Trump allies during his campaign were his children, other politicians like Giuliani and the New Jersey guy, and Kelly Anne Conway. Manafort is being sold big now that he is an impediment to Trump. I'd bet money the average voter didn't know who he was until he was brought up on charges.

I never heard of him, either, and I'd bet the farm that you're correct that everyone except a very tiny percentage knew who he was prior to the Mueller investigation. It's no different than a movie or a play. You hardly ever hear of the guys behind the curtain that push the buttons and pull the levers. But their obscurity It doesn't mean that they are not an integral part of the production.

No doubt the Democrats will push Manafort hard and he may have an effect, but he's not a big or known figure with the regular voters. You could poll most Americans and his name is only big now that he's on trial. He wouldn't have been picked out by anyone prior to that. He's just some guy that had some part in the Trump campaign. He wasn't a face man or anything like that. I'm still not sure what his roll was as many people seem to be campaign managers when it is convenient for them to be so and nobody when not. Manafort was a nobody prior to his indictment.

No one ever heard of Monica Lewinsky, either, but she sure had an effect on the impeachment of Slick Willy.

The challenge for the Dems will be for them to draw a direct, credible link between Trump and a convicted felon. The fact that Manafort was unrecognizable to the novice voter during the election campaign is irrelevant.

[RiverDog]

It is a ridiculous claim that Trump knew Manafort before he hired him to run the campaign through the RNC convention.

Ridiculous to claim that they didn't at least know each other? Holy cow, Idahawk! It's hard to believe that an open minded individual would think a serious POTUS candidate would be so naive as to hire a total stranger as their campaign manager. Here's some evidence for you to attempt to spin:

The depth of their (Trump and Manafort's) relationship pre-2016 isn’t well-known, but it’s clear Trump and Manafort have been operating in close circles for decades. In 1980, Manafort, Charles Black, and Roger Stone (all Ronald Reagan campaign officials) opened a lobbying shop in Washington, D.C. One of their very first clients: Donald Trump, who employed the lobbying firm of Black, Manafort & Stone through the early 1990s.

Plus, both men have mutual close friends, including Barrack and Stone, whom Manafort and Trump have been close with for decades. Both Manafort and Trump were active in the New Jersey political scene in the 1980s, and later, both men were involved in lobbying Capitol Hill on American Indian gaming issues. Since 2006, Manafort has owned a condo in Trump Tower in Manhattan, and around the same time, became involved in the Manhattan real estate scene.

It’s certainly possible both men didn’t know each other well before 2016, but to say they had “some business in the 1980s” does not capture the many ways Trump and Manafort have been crossing paths for decades.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... world.html

[Aseahawkfan]

Ridiculous to claim that they didn't at least know each other? Holy cow, Idahawk! It's hard to believe that an open minded individual would think a serious POTUS candidate would be so naive as to hire a total stranger as their campaign manager. Here's some evidence for you to attempt to spin:

The depth of their (Trump and Manafort's) relationship pre-2016 isn’t well-known, but it’s clear Trump and Manafort have been operating in close circles for decades. In 1980, Manafort, Charles Black, and Roger Stone (all Ronald Reagan campaign officials) opened a lobbying shop in Washington, D.C. One of their very first clients: Donald Trump, who employed the lobbying firm of Black, Manafort & Stone through the early 1990s.

Plus, both men have mutual close friends, including Barrack and Stone, whom Manafort and Trump have been close with for decades. Both Manafort and Trump were active in the New Jersey political scene in the 1980s, and later, both men were involved in lobbying Capitol Hill on American Indian gaming issues. Since 2006, Manafort has owned a condo in Trump Tower in Manhattan, and around the same time, became involved in the Manhattan real estate scene.

It’s certainly possible both men didn’t know each other well before 2016, but to say they had “some business in the 1980s” does not capture the many ways Trump and Manafort have been crossing paths for decades.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... world.html

Doubt he was a stranger. But you've seen Trump. He doesn't even know what some of his advisers are doing some of the time. If Omarosa is right, she was fired without his knowledge. It's very possible Trump wouldn't know what was going on with some of his people. I think most people at his level don't know what is going on all the time. The main difference is they know not to spout off before they talk about whatever is going on and don't overuse twitter.

[burrrton]

Ridiculous to claim that they didn't at least know each other? Holy cow, Idahawk! It's hard to believe that an open minded individual would think a serious POTUS candidate would be so naive as to hire a total stranger as their campaign manager. Here's some evidence for you to attempt to spin:

The depth of their (Trump and Manafort's) relationship pre-2016 isn’t well-known, but it’s clear Trump and Manafort have been operating in close circles for decades. In 1980, Manafort, Charles Black, and Roger Stone (all Ronald Reagan campaign officials) opened a lobbying shop in Washington, D.C. One of their very first clients: Donald Trump, who employed the lobbying firm of Black, Manafort & Stone through the early 1990s.

Plus, both men have mutual close friends, including Barrack and Stone, whom Manafort and Trump have been close with for decades. Both Manafort and Trump were active in the New Jersey political scene in the 1980s, and later, both men were involved in lobbying Capitol Hill on American Indian gaming issues. Since 2006, Manafort has owned a condo in Trump Tower in Manhattan, and around the same time, became involved in the Manhattan real estate scene.

It’s certainly possible both men didn’t know each other well before 2016, but to say they had “some business in the 1980s” does not capture the many ways Trump and Manafort have been crossing paths for decades.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... world.html

Your slate quotes there, I think, are why nobody gives two shts about Manafort. It's obvious the guy wasn't a stranger, but the contortions to make him some kind of bosom buddy come across as laughable.

I don't doubt a savvy political operative will find a successful way to hang him around Trump's neck should he be convicted, but right now, this comes across as tacky political games.

[RiverDog]

Your slate quotes there, I think, are why nobody gives two shts about Manafort. It's obvious the guy wasn't a stranger, but the contortions to make him some kind of bosom buddy come across as laughable.

I don't doubt a savvy political operative will find a successful way to hang him around Trump's neck should he be convicted, but right now, this comes across as tacky political games.

I've never said that he and Trump were "bosom buddies." I was countering Idahawk's contention that Trump never knew Manafort prior to May of 2016, which if anything said in this thread is laughable, that statement qualifies more than any other.

My point is that if Manafort is convicted on one or more of the 18 charges against him, the Dems will, with some justification, attempt to link Manafort to Trump and use it as a political weapon to hammer the R's on an anti corruption platform in the upcoming midterms. Even if it's just a hung jury, they probably will try a similar tactic, although obviously with considerably less credibility. And you're exactly right, it is a tacky political game, one played on both sides of the spectrum, and sometimes by members of this forum.

[idhawkman]

C'mon River, you are not serious at all or at least not credible when you know I was responding to this laughable statement by you trying to imply that Trump and Manafort were "bossom buddies."

Manafort was part of the Trump campaign from May through August of 2016. But the relationship goes back a lot further, way back to the '80's. All one has to do is look at Manafort's timeline and they can deduce that he was a Trump confidant.

Maybe you don't think a "confidant" is synonomous to "bossum buddy" but most people do.

[RiverDog]

Maybe you don't think a "confidant" is synonomous to "bossum buddy" but most people do.

IMO "bossum buddies" is a little closer relationship than confidant, but I get your point, so I'll retract my "confidant" characterization and replace it with "associate".

But to your claim that the two didn't know even each other, it's obvious from the their timelines that at the very least they had a casual friendship. No one in their right mind is going to put a stranger in charge of their presidential campaign.