Manfort's home searched by FBI

[Straw Man]

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.

horseshit

[Straw Man]

[Nick Danger]

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.

Hahaha...I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb assuming he's the subject. If at some point he becomes a witness, the very top of the Trump administration would presumably be in big trouble.

[Howard]

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)

Unless it's Judge Kelly Ann Conway, reasonable evidence of a crime will be required to issue a search warrant.

[Howard]

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

I know more then you guys might want to believe.
For better or worse, you folks only know me from this forum.

Oh well, unlike my dogs and 9 wives ( 8 ex + 1 current) you don't have to see me naked 

[Dos Equis]

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.

 

[Dos Equis]

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.

Unless you want to explain precisely how Russia-in a conspiracy with Trump-hacked our election, the actual crime being investigated, and any evidence that Trump committed that crime, just shut the heck up already.

And have a nice day.   

[avxo]

horseshit

No, not horseshit. Police often get warrants on little more than "WE WANT ONE!"

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Unless you want to explain precisely how Russia-in a conspiracy with Trump-hacked our election, the actual crime being investigated, and any evidence that Trump committed that crime, just shut the heck up already.

And have a nice day.   

Trump is guilty. Deal with it.

[Dos Equis]

Trump is guilty. Deal with it.

Guilty of what?

[Howard]

Guilty of what?

Collusion, obstruction of justice, maybe some Russian oligarch money laundering, etc.

You want to know some more about the specifics on the Russian collusion and hacking, ok.
Team Trump is being investigated they got with Russian hackers about their  breaking in to the DNC server.
These hacks were also released by wiki-leaks as a 3rd party to present a public face for the media.

Please note, colluding with a foreign adversary during a campaign is illegal.

That sums it up.

FYI , you don't have to like it or believe it. You don't have to like me or the media for reporting it.
You may want choose to believe Trump and his supporters instead.

Whatever you choose to do or what I post won't change the findings of the investigator.

[Yamcha]

Collusion, obstruction of justice, maybe some Russian oligarch money laundering, etc.

You want to know some more about the specifics on the Russian collusion and hacking, ok.
Team Trump is being investigated they got with Russian hackers about their  breaking in to the DNC server.
These hacks were also released by wiki-leaks as a 3rd party to present a public face for the media.

Please note, colluding with a foreign adversary during a campaign is illegal.

That sums it up.

FYI , you don't have to like it or believe it. You don't have to like me or the media for reporting it.
You may want choose to believe Trump and his supporters instead.

Whatever you choose to do or what I post won't change the findings of the investigator.

[Howard]

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? 

If you don't know about it, then it must not exist. LOL.

[Howard]

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? 

I know children often use the "point and blame the other kids" defense...

[Dos Equis]

Collusion, obstruction of justice, maybe some Russian oligarch money laundering, etc.

You want to know some more about the specifics on the Russian collusion and hacking, ok.
Team Trump is being investigated they got with Russian hackers about their  breaking in to the DNC server.
These hacks were also released by wiki-leaks as a 3rd party to present a public face for the media.

Please note, colluding with a foreign adversary during a campaign is illegal.

That sums it up.

FYI , you don't have to like it or believe it. You don't have to like me or the media for reporting it.
You may want choose to believe Trump and his supporters instead.

Whatever you choose to do or what I post won't change the findings of the investigator.

Wait.  A substantive response??  I'm not even sure how to respond.  lol 

Ok.  Now that I've gathered myself:

1.  Trump is guilty of collusion?  You claim "colluding with a foreign adversary during a campaign is illegal."  What specific law are you talking about?  I'd like to read it.

2.  What evidence is there that Trump "colluded with a foreign adversary during a campaign"?

3.  So the "hacking" of the election you keep repeating like the good little bot is Russia hacking John Podesta's email account and then releasing genuine copies of Hillary Clinton's emails.  And Trump is "guilty" of this?   What evidence is there that Trump hacked or assisted with the hacking of John Podesta's emails?   
 
4.  Trump is guilty of "money laundering"?  And the evidence of this is what exactly?   

[Dos Equis]

If you don't know about it, then it must not exist. LOL.

It exists in your paranoid conspiracy theorist mind. 

[Dos Equis]

I know children often use the "point and blame the other kids" defense...

If anyone wants to know how children communicate, they only need read any given post by you on this board. 

[lilhawk1]

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 have access to all the evidence that Mueller and his team have?  Then how can you say there is no evidence?  It's an investigation, evidence is collected as part of the investigation.  If there is no evidence then there wouldn't have been grand juries convened.  Actually it is a crime, a felony to lie on a security clearance form, which pretty much every person close to Trump did.  I would say the Trump jr. meeting with the intent of getting damaging information on Clinton is collusion wouldn't you?

[lilhawk1]

No, not horseshit. Police often get warrants on little more than "WE WANT ONE!"

No they don't.

[Dos Equis]

You have access to all the evidence that Mueller and his team have?  Then how can you say there is no evidence?  It's an investigation, evidence is collected as part of the investigation.  If there is no evidence then there wouldn't have been grand juries convened.  Actually it is a crime, a felony to lie on a security clearance form, which pretty much every person close to Trump did.  I would say the Trump jr. meeting with the intent of getting damaging information on Clinton is collusion wouldn't you?

An investigation starts with evidence.  You don't start an investigation into something without at least some evidence of a crime.  In this situation, there is zero.  If there was anything, even a shred, it would have been leaked. 

How do you know every person close to Trump lied on "security clearance forms"? 

Collusion is not a crime.  And no, meeting with someone to possibly obtain opposition research on your political opponent is not a crime. 

[avxo]

No they don't.

Of course they don't. That's why I didn't find these on the first page of Google results in under 30 seconds...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/nyregion/police-officer-is-convicted-of-perjury-to-get-a-search-warrant.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-cops-accused-lying-search-warrant-grand-jury-article-1.2974872
http://www.wxii12.com/article/reidsville-police-sergeant-fired-after-material-in-search-warrant-appeared-to-be-reckless-without-bias-misleading/10328333

[Primemuscle]

No, not horseshit. Police often get warrants on little more than "WE WANT ONE!"

This situation is too high profile for what you suggest about obtaining a warrant. The FBI and the police are not in the same category.

[Straw Man]

Of course they don't. That's why I didn't find these on the first page of Google results in under 30 seconds...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/nyregion/police-officer-is-convicted-of-perjury-to-get-a-search-warrant.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-cops-accused-lying-search-warrant-grand-jury-article-1.2974872
http://www.wxii12.com/article/reidsville-police-sergeant-fired-after-material-in-search-warrant-appeared-to-be-reckless-without-bias-misleading/10328333

what was your search criteria ?

None of the links listed support your claim that police get warrants on little more than "we want one"

All three are instances appear to be police lying or misleading about probable cause to get the warrant

Why mislead their probable cause arguement when they could have just said "we want one" ?

[Skeletor]

what was your search criteria ?

None of the links listed support your claim that police get warrants on little more than "we want one"

All three are instances appear to be police lying or misleading about probable cause to get the warrant

Why mislead their probable cause arguement when they could have just said "we want one" ?

Several cases of warrants without probable cause that are rubber stamped by judges or magistrates and turn out to be invalid only after a raid has been conducted or persons killed.

Apparently the criminals obtained a warrant for this horrific abuse. And why would a judge even care about that if he has immunity?
http://www.businessinsider.com/david-eckerts-traffic-stop-in-new-mexico-2013-11

Another warrant that lacked probable cause and yet was signed by a magistrate and led to the death of a 69 year old man:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/crime/dp-nws-motion-cooper-20160123-story.html

More:
https://www.bernardbrody.com/ga-court-of-appeals-reversal-due-to-invalid-search-warrant/

More:
https://www.abqjournal.com/126443/evidence-in-murder-case-thrown-out.html

And more:
http://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2014/SCO/1104/130688.asp

[avxo]

what was your search criteria ?

None of the links listed support your claim that police get warrants on little more than "we want one"

All three are instances appear to be police lying or misleading about probable cause to get the warrant

Lying and getting a warrant IS getting a warrant by saying "we want one".

I'd post some more links, but I see skeletal already beat me to it.