Happy New Year …

Fiat justitia ruat cælum

Oh, by the way on that other article, which I don't even remember which one it was, you had put a bunch of people from Trump's campaign with photos of them who had been either charged with something or kicked out.  I don't know where this Hillary's email has anything to do with it, but as I remember, all I did was mention you left out Manaford in all those photos in your comment.  Did I say something about Hillary Clinton's emails?  I don't remember doing that.  Talk about triggering, this takes the cake.

You tried to equate Clinton’s indiscretions with Manafort’s ... the very reason I posted the Manafort charging document ... just one of its pages.

If you aren’t clear on why I went there, you can get the full document via a search.

As you noted before, those denying Trump's culpabililty in colluding with the Russians are whistling past the graveyard...

The old saying, ''let the river take it's course'' applies....

And if it trickles leftward toward Hillary and the previous administration, so be it. Right Mac?

And if it trickles leftward toward Hillary and the previous administration, so be it. Right Mac?

Do let us know when any related confessions appear on charging documents.

Boy, do you Trump-lovers whistle!

Give it time, no telling what the investigation ends up. Are going to be mad at Mueller if he can't find any dirt on the Donald?

Says one of the gang that expresses anger multiple times daily regarding all things Clinton.

This environmental scientist agrees kind of. The problem being that we aren't dealing with a river. The analogy breaks down. What we are dealing with is a foolish, childish, mad fool power monger who lacks a social conscience. 

The Left's need to be outraged is central to their very existence. They will, therefore, point to a baloney sandwich, raise an eyebrow, and shout "A-HA!" and expect the rest of us to see a crime. 

Sorry, but you still need to actually connect dots (all of them) to an actual crime (a crime that matters, committed by people who matter) - not just something that you can make sound scandalous. Until then, it's still just a baloney sandwich.

Sorry, but you still need to actually connect dots (all of them) to an actual crime (a crime that matters, committed by people who matter) - not just something that you can make sound scandalous. Until then, it's still just a baloney sandwich.

Sorry indeed! Do take notice of the "dots" in my article … when individuals confess and plea bargain, those with whom they cut their deals are onto the dot-connection process … and the basic investigative protocol is to refrain from the calling in of both the cynics and believers until all that can be known, is known.

If you have allowed yourself to believe that a "baloney sandwich"/fake news/nothingburger/hoax, etc. is a reality, you are living in a Trumpian delusional world; only those with a "consciousness of guilt" try to thwart the very investigation that could verify their claims of innocence … ditto those who keep changing their stories.

I have not stated herein that "a crime has been committed" with regard to "Russia" -- what I have done is to give those like yourself a view at some undeniably real elements, and, beginning with my headline, a chance to look at yourself in a kind of "mirror" so as to force you towards the tune you whistle.

AND YOU HAVE SHOWN BY YOUR COMMENT THAT THE MIRROR REVEALS WHAT REFLECTS ON YOU … 

… and the HANDWRITING ON THE WALL AS WELL!

You keep thinking that Mac, but we're not worrying or even whistling. The investigation can't even prove any collusion, let alone Trump's suspected involvement in it. Enjoy your baloney sandwich.

Now that they are interviewing the tech guys and the officials in the RNC et al, it should really get interesting. This will be a good year for defense attorneys and I predict we will be seeing some bankruptcies of low level GOP operatives. 

when individuals confess and plea bargain, those with whom they cut their deals are onto the dot-connection process

No! Not necessarily. This is what I'm talking about. The guilty pleas we have seen tell us nothing about the core question Mueller is charged with answering. i.e.: To what extent, if any, did Trump or his campaign coordinate with Russia to influence the election, and was it criminal? 

You can say they are connected dots, but just saying so doesn't make it true. You have to show how they connect to the central concern of the investigation. So far, no one has done that.

only those with a "consciousness of guilt" try to thwart the very investigation that could verify their claims of innocence

See, that is 100%, totally and completely false. People lie to investigators or try to get investigations closed down for all sorts of reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with wrongdoing.

ditto those who keep changing their stories

Same with people who change their stories. You might believe that people who change their stories know they have done something wrong, but it's just not so.

First: People don't trust investigators. You can believe in "the system" all day long, but when you are the one under scrutiny, that faith evaporates with the knowledge that investigators are just people. People make mistakes, they are biased, and they are corrupt. The person under investigation very rarely is willing to place his total faith in the process. Lack of control when it comes to your liberty, your property, your profession, and your reputation are very unsettling. No one who is under investigation is totally relaxed and calm about it. Ever been audited? Know people who have? Everybody who gets audited is nervous, but not everyone who gets audited has done something wrong.

Second: Good people - innocent people - will say or do whatever they think they need to to get out from under the microscope and get investigators looking in another direction. Even if you think you have a slam dunk case in your favor, absolutely anything can happen at trial. Look at OJ, Casey Anthony, or the LAPD Rodney King case. Those are famous surprising acquittals, but the reverse happens, too. People you are certain are innocent get convicted all the time. If prosecutors offer a deal that keeps the defendant out of prison, many innocent people will take it - especially if they're not career criminals and have a lot to lose by going to prison. Believe it or not, innocent people plead guilty every day.

Third: People don't know the law. This includes people you would expect to know the law, like cops, lawyers, and judges. Just look at how many appellate courts disagree with each other and how many 5-4 votes we get on the Supreme Court. Knowledge and understanding of the law is not an absolute and obvious truth that everyone agrees on. Therefore, someone like Michael Flynn, a government professional who was just doing his job in an ordinary manner can see people on the news freaking out over him talking to Russians and suddenly he's afraid he might go to prison. So he lies to investigators thinking he'll solve the problem himself.

It's extremely telling that Flynn pled only to lying to investigators and not to improperly negotiating with the Russians, interfering with the election, or anything else that would reflect serious wrongdoing. That is a strong indication that except for the lie, he didn't actually do anything wrong. Believe me, if prosecutors were confident they could nail him for something worse, they would have pursued it. The fact of his lie doesn't make him guilty of whatever else you can imagine and it certainly doesn't make anyone associated with him guilty of any wrongdoing.

when individuals confess and plea bargain, those with whom they cut their deals are onto the dot-connection process

No! Not necessarily. This is what I'm talking about. The guilty pleas we have seen tell us nothing about the core question Mueller is charged with answering. i.e.: To what extent, if any, did Trump or his campaign coordinate with Russia to influence the election,  and  was it criminal? 

You can say they are connected dots, but just saying so doesn't make it true. You have to  show  how they connect to the central concern of the investigation. So far, no one has done that.

I have more than once explained why the full story has not yet been told, why investigators often, as a strategy, protract/prolong investigations, AND THE FACT THAT WHEN DEALS ARE CUT, THEY ARE CUT WITH REGARD TO THE LEAST SERIOUS OF MULTIPLE OFFENSES … AS NOTIFICATION TO THE RECIPIENTS, THAT "THIS IS THE BEST DEAL YOU'RE GOING TO GET, SO, TELL ALL NOW!"

only those with a "consciousness of guilt" try to thwart the very investigation that could verify their claims of innocence

See, that is 100%, totally and completely false. People lie to investigators or try to get investigations closed down for all sorts of reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with wrongdoing.

ditto those who keep changing their stories

Actually, YOU are wrong; PERJURY rarely ends in the closing of an investigation … and leads to 5 year prison sentences!

"Consciousness of Guilt"    bereansatthegate

Same with people who change their stories. You might believe that people who change their stories know they have done something wrong, but it's just not so.

You are PRONOUNCEMENT MACHINE! Sometimes stories are changed because of better recollection … but at other times, having lied in the first place, upon subsequent interrogation, the story changes because the details of the truth are the ones that persist … BECAUSE THEY CONSTITUTE REALITY!

I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of your seat-of-the-pants whistling. You can equivocate all you want, it does not change the realities.

FYI:

More signs of guilt: Trump’s campaign was warned about Russia, and said nothing

In the summer of 2016, the FBI was already investigating “pervasive connections” between Trump and the Russians

HEATHER DIGBY PARTON  12.19.2017 • 8:07 AM

On Monday, NBC News  reported  that sometime after Donald Trump officially became the Republican nominee for president on July 19, 2016, FBI officials delivered him a top-level counterintelligence briefing in which they warned him that Russians were trying to infiltrate the campaign. They asked that the campaign report any contacts or suspicious activity to the bureau. The exact date of this meeting is unclear, but it is assumed to have happened around the time both general election campaigns were receiving  their first classified briefings  around the middle of August.

It is apparently standard to brief presidential campaigns about the possibility of such threats, but in this case there was a highly specific one. And it was likely explained in some pretty stark terms, since Trump was new to classified briefings and the FBI knew at this point that the Russians had hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer system and were behind the WikiLeaks releases that Trump touted on the campaign trail every day.

In fact, a month or so later when Trump met Clinton for the presidential debates and repeatedly claimed that "nobody knew" who had hacked the DNC, saying it might have even been "some guy in his bed who weighs 400 pounds," the intelligence community was appalled:

salon

WHEN DEALS ARE CUT, THEY ARE CUT WITH REGARD TO THE LEAST SERIOUS OF MULTIPLE OFFENSES

Simply not true. I have seen enough of them to know. Often it's the most serious charge that gets the plea while lesser charges or enhancements are dropped. Also you don't know if the bargaining is over charges or sentencing. Trials can be as much of a crap shoot for prosecutors as they are for the defense, so it is very common for either side to accept the "sure thing" they can stomach.

PERJURY rarely ends in the closing of an investigation

One start for you might be to understand the facts of what's actually going on, and this is an example. Flynn did not plead guilty to perjury. He pled to making false statements. They are similar, but different crimes, and the latter is much easier to prove. If you don't even understand what he pled to, it undercuts any argument you might make trying to connect that plea to actions by other people.

I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of your seat-of-the-pants whistling.

It's actually not seat of the pants whistling. It's professional experience. I know whereof I speak.

It's actually not seat of the pants whistling. It's professional experience. I know whereof I speak.

As do I; so let's call IMPASSE and you may have the last word as long as it is on-topic.

But in Trump's case the outrage is justified. If he had done nothing but put Pruitt in charge of the EPA it would be justified.

Now, if someone would tell me what the term "whistling" means. I sometimes whistle while I work.

I will be posting the charging documents regarding Manafort, Papadopolous, Flynn

Manafort and Papadopolous Indicted on Money issues in the past, and Flynn Indicted on Lying to the FBI on things the FBI already knew about, but didn't find a problem "Before" he Lied" about what they already knew.

Funny thing here......If we lie....don't pay taxes because of hardship.... or are just having a hard time of it.....it's a BIG Fine or a jailing offense.

If politicians, heads of government agencies, or so-called "Important" people lie ,"Misinform" or don't pay taxes....they retire early or get moved to a different position within, or just keep on doing what they do that is "Important", according to what we are told. 

Does anyone else see a "Problem" here ?