Manfort's home searched by FBI

[Fuzzy Nuts]

There is zero evidence of a crime being committed.  Even though there is zero evidence of "collusion," even if there were, collusion isn't a crime.

This whole thing is retarded.  There should be evidence of a crime before we spend probably millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan witch hunt.  Not just a partisan witch hunt, but the stupidest conspiracy theory since 9/11.    

You make no sense. Investigators don't lay all their cards on the table as soon as they find a shred of evidence. You have no way to know if there is evidence or not.

[Dos Equis]

You make no sense. Investigators don't lay all their cards on the table as soon as they find a shred of evidence. You have no way to know if there is evidence or not.

BS.  You need at least some evidence BEFORE you start an investigation.  What is the crime that is being investigated? 

Where is any evidence of that crime?

[Nick Danger]

BS.  You need at least some evidence BEFORE you start an investigation.  What is the crime that is being investigated? 

Where is any evidence of that crime?

There is obviously evidence if they were granted a search warrant.

[Dos Equis]

There is obviously evidence if they were granted a search warrant.

Evidence of what? 

[Fuzzy Nuts]

BS.  You need at least some evidence BEFORE you start an investigation.  What is the crime that is being investigated? 

Where is any evidence of that crime?

Yeah you need some evidence. What makes you think your going to be told what evidence they have while they're still conducting an investigation?

[Dos Equis]

Yeah you need some evidence. What makes you think your going to be told what evidence they have while they're still conducting an investigation?

Are you friggin serious?  There are leaks about everything in DC. 

In any event, what is the crime and where is the evidence of that crime? 

[Nick Danger]

Evidence of what? 

Only the judge, the FBI and Mueller's team know for sure.

[Dos Equis]

Only the judge, the FBI and Mueller's team know for sure.

lol.  Whatever.  You conspiracy theorists are funny.  You know there is "something" there, you just have zero facts to rely on. 

[Las Vegas]

No, these guys can gain a search based on nothing but strung-along words.  And they'll get away with it as closely to 100% as the wildest imagination might figure.

But of course sometimes they'll get lucky.

That's what happens when we pretend the "authorities" are beyond question.

[Nick Danger]

No, these guys can gain a search based on nothing but strung-along words.  And they'll get away with it as closely to 100% as the wildest imagination might figure.

But of course sometimes they'll get lucky.

That's what happens when we pretend the "authorities" are beyond question.

Here's an explanation by a very "Trump friendly" judge on the very "Trump friendly" Fox News.

Judge Nap on Manafort Raid: 'It Tells Me There's a There There

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/09/paul-manafort-raid-judge-napolitano-reacts-latest-mueller-russia-probe

[Fuzzy Nuts]

lol.  Whatever.  You conspiracy theorists are funny.  You know there is "something" there, you just have zero facts to rely on. 

Listen, I don't know if there is evidence and you don't know if there isn't. Do you have any idea how an investigation works?

Why get all butthurt because some crooks are being investigated? Your bias is really showing.

[Dos Equis]

Listen, I don't know if there is evidence and you don't know if there isn't. Do you have any idea how an investigation works?

Why get all butthurt because some crooks are being investigated? Your bias is really showing.

Look, I know several things:

1.  You are unable to identify the alleged crime Trump committed.

2.  You are unable to identify ANY evidence of Trump committing a crime.

3.  "Colluding" with Russia, even if it happened (and there is zero evidence it did), is not a crime.

4.  I know that an investigation of a crime starts with at least some evidence of a crime being committed, not the bassawkwards way this ridiculous Trump-Russia conspiracy theory started and continues. 

In order for someone to be a "crook" they must have committed a crime.  So again, what crime did Trump commit? 

[Yamcha]

Where is Howard? He couldn't even properly tell us what Manafort's role in the campaign was, but he knew there was something there because he is an Independent voter

[Dos Equis]

Where is Howard? He couldn't even properly tell us what Manafort's role in the campaign was, but he knew there was something there because he is an Independent voter

Howard didn't know that Manafort was not Trump's first campaign manager. 

[Straw Man]

One of the things that's interesting about this is how aggressive they are being with an investigation in search of a crime.  Why didn't the FBI use these kinds of tactics with Clinton when they had evidence that an actual crime had been committed? 

"evidence" that you imagine doesn't count

and there is no way for Mueller to have gotten this search warrant without probable cause

[Coach is Back!]

"evidence" that you imagine doesn't count

and there is no way for Mueller to have gotten this search warrant without probable cause

You're delusional if you think Mueller would actually get a warrant for "probable cause" since there was no "probable cause" and if that was the case and he actually had no bias, Killary would have been indicted already with PROOF of evidence.

[Nick Danger]

You're delusional if you think Mueller would actually get a warrant for "probable cause" since there was no "probable cause" and if that was the case and he actually had no bias, Killary would have been indicted already with PROOF of evidence.

What does Mueller have to do with the FBI investigation on Clinton?

[Howard]

Aaaaaand another desperate attempt by Howard to rationalize his ideology/vote for Hillary.

The election is over and Trump won.

This investigation is about possible collusion and financial crimes with a foreign adversary.

[Howard]

There is zero evidence of a crime being committed.  Even though there is zero evidence of "collusion," even if there were, collusion isn't a crime.

This whole thing is retarded.  There should be evidence of a crime before we spend probably millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan witch hunt.  Not just a partisan witch hunt, but the stupidest conspiracy theory since 9/11.    

I'll fwd this post to special consul Robert Mueller, with the tag phrase "hope this helps".

Once he learns the views posted by Dos Equis, he'll likely
conclude he's on a witch hunt and terminate the investigation.

This "reality denial" reminds me of the girl who farts with only 1 other person on an elevator.
They both know who did it , but she can't admit her butt smells.

[Howard]

BS.  You need at least some evidence BEFORE you start an investigation.  What is the crime that is being investigated? 

Where is any evidence of that crime?

You're correct that Robert Mueller must have had some evidence  he could prove,  to get a search warrant.
Having a pre-down raid required substantial proof for probable cause that he was involved in serious crimes.

[Howard]

lol.  Whatever.  You conspiracy theorists are funny.  You know there is "something" there, you just have zero facts to rely on. 

This is no "conspiracy theory".
We know who is being investigated and who is in charge of the investigation.
Special Consul Robert Mueller is leading the investigation into team Trump
for POSSIBLE crimes involving: collusion, money laundering, obstruction of justice, etc.
Trump supporters may not like it, but it's still basic reality.

Ok it looks bad , BUT ,Pres. Trump isn't AUTOMATICALLY guilty by default.
Let's allow the facts and details to come in before either side renders judgment.

[Walter Sobchak]

You're correct that Robert Mueller must have had some evidence  he could prove,  to get a search warrant.
Having a pre-down raid required substantial proof for probable cause that he was involved in serious crimes.

Both are assumptions made by you.

You couldn't define substantial proof with a dictionary and thesaurus shoved up your ass

[Nick Danger]

Both are assumptions made by you.

You couldn't define substantial proof with a dictionary and thesaurus shoved up your ass

Well luckily for us we don't need Howard's definition, there was a federal judge for that.

[Straw Man]

Here's an explanation by a very "Trump friendly" judge on the very "Trump friendly" Fox News.

Judge Nap on Manafort Raid: 'It Tells Me There's a There There

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/09/paul-manafort-raid-judge-napolitano-reacts-latest-mueller-russia-probe

Bingo

You can start an investigation on nothing more than suspicion of a crime

You're not getting a judge to issue a search warrant without probable cause

I've said before (months ago) that Manifort is probably involved in money laundering and very likely tax evasion (kind of go hand in hand)

[Walter Sobchak]

Well luckily for us we don't need Howard's definition, there was a federal judge for that.

At this point you don't even know if Manafort is the subject of or witness in the investigation.

You people are so easily lead by the media.