Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (70303)	5/7/2018 8:32:01 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 359793

No. I know you have a taste for the complex, but this issue is very simple. Judge Ellis has captured it perfectly. justice.gov The investigation is limited to matters described by Comey in his testimony to a House Committee on March 17, 2017, and matters that arose or may arise directly from that investigation. The investigation into Manafort’s financial crimes arose years before the election, many years before Comey started any investigation. It is logically impossible for Manafort’s personal crimes, for which Mueller indicted him, not for election-related stuff, too be related in any way to a subsequent election for which Trump had not even declared his candidacy. You may wish to believe that Trump was colluding with the Russkies concerning the 2016 election in 2006 or whenever it was Manafort was doing his thing, but no reasonable person will believe such nonsense. Mueller’s team claims that there is another document that authorizes the hand off of the investigation to them, but it heavily redacted. Ellis, as a federal judge, is cleared to read such a document, and demanded it in clear form within two weeks. I doubt that will happen because Mueller would have to argue that something that happened years ago, before Trump was a candidate, is somehow directly related to the investigation Comey described on March 17, 2017 in his testimony to the House. That would be embarrassing to any lawyer forced to argue such nonsense.