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: Wharf Rat who wrote (70422)	5/7/2018 4:18:02 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362996

Assuming for purposes of argument that the premise of the Atlantic's argument is correct, how do the acts that the Atlantic relates justify Mueller's prosecution for acts that took place many years before the election? If Manafort's actions after he left the campaign can be deemed to be related to Russian meddling in the 2016 election, I have no problem in investigating him for that. But this has *not happened, the Atlantic's dated (October 2017) palaver notwithstanding. If Mueller wanted a good, proper and legal tool with which to get to Trump, indicting Manafort for election-related stuff would be ideal. There would be zero issues with his authority to do so. You have to ask yourself why this has not happened.* Mueller could avoid the slings and arrows Judge Ellis will be sending his way by focusing on matters he is authorized to act on, instead of intentionally stepping over the line and relying on irrelevancies. Again, why hasn't this happened over the course of the past seven months? Do you not think that Mueller has better sources of info than the Atlantic? LOL! Indicting Manafort for actions that took place before Trump had declared his candidacy for the 2016 election is patently absurd. It is directly contrary to the grant of jurisdiction Mueller received. It shows his chicken-manure stripes.