Had anyone mentioned that Gates and Manafort just got new charges filed against them today?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...new-rick-gates-trump-investigation-fbi-latest
Someone didn't read page 45
Had anyone mentioned that Gates and Manafort just got new charges filed against them today?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...new-rick-gates-trump-investigation-fbi-latest
They must believe Manafort will flip because they really want to nail the guy on the charges they got on him now. Seems like Gates and van der Zwaan were given deals specifically to give evidence and testify against Manafort.Had anyone mentioned that Gates and Manafort just got new charges filed against them today?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...new-rick-gates-trump-investigation-fbi-latest
Yeah, I'll take that as a concession that you lied about reading it.
Thanks for playing.
I absolutely read it, you just have different and completely biased conclusions
next
Page 45?!?! - We're on page 31 here brah, what are you some sort of 20 post-per-page NEEEEEEERD?Someone didn't read page 45
Someone didn't read page 45
Page 45?!?! - We're on page 31 here brah, what are you some sort of 20 post-per-page NEEEEEEERD?
Cool kids use 30 post-per-page - it's the sweet spot.
Page 45?!?! - We're on page 31 here brah, what are you some sort of 20 post-per-page NEEEEEEERD?
Cool kids use 30 post-per-page - it's the sweet spot.
You seem like a spirited taint..
Ill get right on thatIf this is the case I would recommend that you enroll in an English comp class at your local community college.
Ill get right on that
btw in case you are not sure Comp is short for Comprehension not computer.
After this massacre how tf does he even have balls to keep posting in this thread. Shit I'd self ban myself after that .If you had read the indictment, why do you keep claiming it was just 13 "trollbots"?
And why are you quoting language that doesn't even appear in the indictment? And isn't even a paraphrase or a conclusion that can be drawn from it?
Are you lying or confused?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're confused, because you appear to be misquoting a pressrelease by Rosenstein, at best.
First, your claim that it was 13 trolls/bots (as opposed to anything more substantial) is contradicted by the bulk of the indictment. I'm going to recommend you review charges 2-8 in particular.
Second, your implication that communication was only "attempted" as opposed to accomplished is also contradicted by the plain language of the indictment you just claimed you "absolutely" had read. (For example, pages 28-30).
Now, let's dig into the Rosenstein press release.
Here's the actual language he used:
"Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."
Note that he never claims that the conduct "had little or no effect." Instead, he says that the indictment has nothing about such an effect. Thats an important difference, because indictments do not have to disclose information beyond that needed to establish the existence of a crime.
Out of curiosity, since the assertion has been made...
Can the president really just pull anybody off the street and show them whatever classified info he wants to and have them sit in on classified security meetings, simply because he's president?
If so it seems like that ought to be limited by something.
@HereticBD alt account confirmed
Mueller starting to drain the swamp!!
Nah, Google spell check has conditioned all the Canadian spelling out of me.
"Colour" is "Color", you silly Canadian!"
Shit. At this rate......
#Mueller2020