luthervol
rational (x) and reasonable (y)
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2016
- Messages
- 46,917
- Likes
- 20,008
Manafort had alerted authorities to a controversial meeting on June 9, 2016, involving Trumps son Donald Jr., other campaign representatives and a Russian lawyer promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton, according to people familiar with the matter. The president and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were dragged into the matter as details repeatedly emerged that contradicted the initial accounts of that meeting.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-mueller-is-said-to-turn-up-heat-on-manafort
When they say "alerted" does that mean that he told them about the meeting or they were alerted by FISA surveillance? Does anyone know when they issued the FISA warrants?
Manafort had alerted authorities to a controversial meeting on June 9, 2016, involving Trumps son Donald Jr., other campaign representatives and a Russian lawyer promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton, according to people familiar with the matter. The president and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were dragged into the matter as details repeatedly emerged that contradicted the initial accounts of that meeting.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-mueller-is-said-to-turn-up-heat-on-manafort
When they say "alerted" does that mean that he told them about the meeting or they were alerted by FISA surveillance? Does anyone know when they issued the FISA warrants?
In fact, Manafort had alerted authorities to a controversial meeting on June 9, 2016, involving Trumps son Donald Jr., other campaign representatives and a Russian lawyer promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton, according to people familiar with the matter. The president and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were dragged into the matter as details repeatedly emerged that contradicted the initial accounts of that meeting.
Manaforts business associates also risk being engulfed by the probe.
Jeffrey Yohai, who is the estranged husband of Manaforts daughter, is under investigation by FBI agents working with prosecutors in the U.S. attorneys office in Los Angeles, according to people familiar with their work.
With cash infusions from Manafort, Yohai formed real-estate partnerships that took in investor money in New York and Los Angeles. Some of the partnerships subsequently declared bankruptcy, court filings show. U.S. authorities are now looking into claims by an investor that Yohai operated a Ponzi scheme, the people explained. Yohai is contesting a civil lawsuit over one of the soured deals, having won an initial round challenging the jurisdiction.
If it was in your power to remove him from office today, based on any hard evidence we now have, would you?
Yes or no to the question asked, please. Would you remove him from office today if it was in your power?I don't know that there is hard evidence today that would warrant removal from office. If/when there is, I hope it is done asap.
I do firmly believe that the country will be better off the instant he leaves office. So based on that belief, I would remove him the second I could justifiably do so.
Yes or no to the question asked, please. Would you remove him from office today if it was in your power?
That is all I need to know. I would never remove a president from office based on whether or not I like him, or suspect that he did something. I would wait him out, because it isn't all about me, or what I want. You, on the other hand, would overrule the people that duly elected him.How can I answer that with no clue about what the investigation is turning up?
But I'll play your game. Yes, I would remove him today; and that's based on assumptions I'm forced to make in order to play your game.
Did you even read my post? You are just looking for something to validate your preconceived notions. Sort of like what you're accusing the people investigating Trump of doing.That is all I need to know. I would never remove a president from office based on whether or not I like him, or suspect that he did something. I would wait him out, because it isn't all about me, or what I want. You, on the other hand, would overrule the people that duly elected him.
No. You don't give a hoot about what anybody else wants. It's not about you. The guy was legally elected. Deal with it.Did you even read my post? You are just looking for something to validate your preconceived notions. Sort of like what you're accusing the people investigating Trump of doing.
I clearly stated that it would depend on what the investigations uncovered. Your willingness to so cavalierly overlook this critical point just to state your opinion is a little disappointing.
Remember, you've always been one of my favorites. I've tried to reason why that is but continually come up with nothing other than the possibility that you embedded subliminal messages in previous posts.