teamgreen02

I wouldn't want to live next to that shit either. This guy sounds like a nut, probably a member here.

Campaign finance violations are no big deal if you're a Democrat. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784

You forgot Orange Man Bad.

ttt, over a week later, The Guardian won't comment nor provide evidence to support their story. No other news outlet has been able to corroborate this.

This is what I was looking to get. Anyone have one of these? Folds up and out of the way real nice when not in use. https://www.amazon.com/TS10048B-Magnum-Receiver-Hitch-Mount/dp/B000S0N2RU/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1544118643&sr=8-13&keywords=towing+hitch+b%26w

In which case the recommended sentence is 0-6 months in a minimum security federal prison. Papadopolous is serving a whole 14 days. Hope he learns his lesson! The full force of the US intelligence agencies came down on this guy and all he gets is 14 days? He must be a saint.

Nothing but constant negative coverage by the fake news media and he is still at 50% approval, LOL.

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/893327/573 The media is having a feeding frenzy, trying to interpret the sentencing memo just filed in Michael Flynn’s case, but most of these interpretations are misplaced. The sentencing memo filed by the Office of Special Counsel is a fairly standard filing by federal prosecutors. So, rather than relying on political pundits to interpret this document, allow me provide you with the insight of an attorney experienced in federal criminal matters. The media has made a big to-do of Mueller’s decision to describe Flynn as having provided “substantial assistance.” However, those enamored with Mueller’s choice of words should understand that “substantial assistance” is the same language used to describe all cooperation agreements and is the title of the relevant section of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines - §5K1.1, Substantial Assistance to Authorities. To explain how this section applies to Flynn, I will show how it works in ordinary, non-political criminal cases. Federal criminal prosecutions are frequently built on the testimony of cooperating witnesses, usually a former member of the charged conspiracy. It is the classic “prisoner’s dilemma,” where the first defendant to flip on his or her compatriots gets a reduced sentence. While this much is well known, the nuts and bolts are a bit more technical and less understood by the public. A federal cooperation agreement requires a defendant to plead guilty and agree to provide information and assistance to the government. However, what most people do not know and Hollywood persistently gets wrong, is that there is no agreement about how much the sentence will be reduced. Instead, the defendant puts himself at the complete mercy of the federal prosecutor and the judge, without any promises about what sentence they will receive. A cooperating defendant is required to immediately plead guilty to everything they did, without any reduction in charges. There are multiple reasons for this. First, it helps their credibility with a jury that they have accepted full responsibility for all their misdeeds. Second, it is a heavy hammer that prosecutors can hold over the cooperators head, because if they breach the agreement, they cannot withdraw their guilty plea and will be sentenced for the full weight of their offenses. Although the defendant pleads guilty immediately, the sentencing hearing is pushed far into the future, sometimes many years, until cooperation is complete, so that the full extent of the cooperation can be considered by the sentencing judge. This is accomplished through the submission of what is frequently referred to as a “5K letter,” where the prosecutors inform the judge of the full nature and extent of the cooperation to be considered at sentencing — the same redacted document that Mueller filed for Flynn. Because there is no direct quid pro quo (i.e. promise of probation in exchange for testimony), a cooperator has a motivation to keep the prosecutors happy, knowing that the more he or she helps, the better this letter will look and the more likely the judge will impose a lenient sentence. It also bolster’s the cooperating witness’s credibility because when testifying before a jury, “I don’t know how much jail time I’ll get” sounds far better than “I’m getting no jail in exchange for my testimony here.” With that background, Mueller’s sentencing memo, and the entire Flynn prosecution, seems much less ominous than many in the media are making it out to be. The fact that Mueller’s memo has been filed is strong evidence that there are no further prosecutions forthcoming from Flynn’s information. No legitimate federal prosecutor would allow Flynn to be sentenced if there is a possibility that he will have to testify in a forthcoming case. This is the particularly troubling aspect of the op-eds and interviews now being presented by former federal prosecutors; in order to squeeze this document into a narrative which makes this appear as bad news for the president, they must forget how they used to practice law. Aside from the fact that none of these former prosecutors would have submitted such a sentencing memo if the information was leading to further prosecutions, the language that they zero in on as “remarkable” is, in fact, very standard and formulaic. Every cooperator is described as giving “substantial assistance.” Every offense is described as “serious.” Moreover, Mueller’s recommendation of no jail time is completely unsurprising. The sentencing guidelines for his offense is so low that only 0-6 months is recommended, even with no cooperation. As cooperation ordinarily results in a sentence below the guidelines, you cannot go any lower than zero. Any other recommendation would violate the basic principle of cooperation agreements. There is one final aspect to cooperation that may be quite applicable here, which nobody has mentioned. Substantial assistance is not required to be incriminating. Sometimes, where the government is proceeding to a full investigation based on an erroneous premise, a cooperator can save the government the expense of a fruitless inquiry and the diversion of effort from more promising work. If Flynn provided Mueller with truthful information helping to establish that there was no collusion or other wrongdoing in the campaign, this would also be considered substantial assistance, warranting a recommendation of no jail. While many would like to interpret Mueller’s memo as an ominous harbinger of bad things to come for Team Trump, when viewed through the perspective of an experienced federal criminal practitioner, this is quite unlikely. The media’s predictions would require us to assume the Mueller and his team are completely disregarding all normal DOJ policies and procedures regarding cooperators. Given the strategic rationale behind these policies and procedures, this is an unlikely scenario. Read Newsmax: Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe: U.S. news, politics, world, health, finance, video, science, technology, live news stream Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

Two years of investigations and you have nothing even close to resembling collusion with Russia by the Trump team. If Mueller did, it would have leaked to the media long ago. What we do know is there was massive abuses of the FISA court by the DOJ. Look at the claims made in the FISA application. Page has still never been charged with ANY crime. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/95-carter-page-fisa-documents-foia-release/full/optimized.pdf

They can think all they want. Fact is they spied on him and he has never been charged. He lived in Russia for a period of time, of course he has talked with Russians. They spied on George Papadopoulos too. Again, nothing. Nothing substantial will be found but you will never admit to being wrong.

There were so sure he was a Russian spy that they got four FISA warrants on him. That's the initial FISA warrant plus three renews is you need help with the math. Each FISA renewal requires additional information. They spied on this guy for months with the full force of the US government and found NOTHING. That's not what they were after though, they wanted to spy on the rest of the Trump campaign via the two hop rule.

I know, right. GM and Chrysler got $80 billion in bailouts and cost the tax payer over $10 billion. Ford took a $5.9 billion loan that they are repaying with interest tied to the US Treasure rate.

The taxpayers picked up the bill for $11.2 billion in loses on the GM deal so they can now lay off US workers and assemble cars with Chinese parts. Ford took a loan to make investments since GM and Chrysler were being subsidized. They shouldn't have got anything either. At least they are paying it all back with interest.

She's a smooth talker, should be a politician. Anybody still think we should have bailed them out? GM should have gone the way of Lehman Brothers.

Came here to post this. John Soloman knows the whole story. So do Trump and guys on the Intel committees. And Comey knows they know. Think Comey is nervous?

Don't get gut hooked here like @f7ben almost did last week with the Assange/Manafort story that has completely fell apart.

Orange man bad!

Came here to post this, lol. Like I said, this story is falling apart hour by hour.

Libs will love the headlines regardless of what is actually in the report. Conservatives already know there was no collusion or it would have leaked out months ago. Wouldn't it be something if Wikileaks revealed their source after Mueller's report and it wasn't the Russians? That would be the final nail in the coffin for Russian collusion. Don't worry though, indicting a few Russians and a few 14 day stays for lying to the FBI and Mueller is a hero to the left.

Only issue we have with Milwaukee is my dads set will trip the battery and it has to go back on the charger to reset it. Not real convenient when he is putting up a deer stand. The Milwaukee will drive 3" long deck screws much faster than the Ridgid will. One project I put in ~3000 screws with 2 Ridgid impact drivers. When one got too hot to hold onto I switched to the other. No issues with either.

Ridgid is what I use. Lifetime warranty including on batteries that come with a set. The big batteries they have 2 packs for $100 around the holidays. I wouldn't use them professionally, but around the house they are fine. I have relatively few cordless tools. Buy a corded one and you have a lifetime tool.

The Ecuador embassy... In LONDON. Under 24/7 surveillance by the Brits. If Manafort had lunch nearby, they would know it.

The Manafort/Assange Russian collusion narrative is falling apart hour by hour. Even CNN isn't running with this. MSNBC only has a report on how The Guardian reported this. https://theintercept.com/2018/11/27/it-is-possible-paul-manafort-visited-julian-assange-if-true-there-should-be-ample-video-and-other-evidence-showing-this/ THE GUARDIAN TODAY published a blockbuster, instantly viral story claiming that anonymous sources told the newspaper that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange at least three times in the Ecuadorian Embassy, “in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016.” The article – from lead reporter Luke Harding, who has a long-standing and vicious personal feud with WikiLeaks and is still promoting his book titled “Collusion: How Russia Helped Trump Win the White House” – presents no evidence, documents or other tangible proof to substantiate its claim, and it is deliberately vague on a key point: whether any of these alleged visits happened once Manafort was managing Trump’s campaign. For its part, WikiLeaks vehemently and unambiguously denies the claim. “Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper’s reputation,” the organization tweeted, adding: “WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.” The group also predicted: “This is going to be one of the most infamous news disasters since Stern published the ‘Hitler Diaries.'” (Manafort denies it the claim as well; see update below.) While certain MSNBC and CNN personalities instantly and mindlessly treated the story as true and shocking, other more sober and journalisticvoices urged caution and skepticism. The story, wrote WikiLeaks critic Jeet Heer of the New Republic, “is based on anonymous sources, some of whom are connected with Ecuadorian intelligence. The logs of the embassy show no such meetings. The information about the most newsworthy meeting (in the spring of 2016) is vaguely worded, suggesting a lack of certitude.” There are many more reasons than the very valid ones cited by Heer to treat this story with great skepticism, which I will outline in a moment. Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange – either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times – but since the Guardian presents literally no evidence for the reader to evaluate, relying instead on a combination of an anonymous source and a secret and bizarrely vague intelligence document it claims it reviewed (but does not publish), no rational person would assume this story to be true. But the main point is this one: London itself is one of the world’s most surveilled, if not the most surveilled, cities. And the Ecuadorian Embassy in that city – for obvious reasons – is one of the most scrutinized, surveilled, monitored and filmed locations on the planet. In 2015, Wired reported that “the UK is one of the most surveilled nations in the world. An estimated 5.9 million CCTV cameras keep watch over our every move,” and that “by one estimate people in urban areas of the UK are likely to be captured by about 30 surveillance camera systems every day.” The World Atlas proclaimed that “London is the most spied-on city in the world,” and that “on average a Londoner is captured on camera about 300 times daily.” For obvious reasons, the Ecuadorian Embassy in central London where Assange has been living since he received asylum in 2011 is subjected to every form of video and physical surveillance imaginable. Visitors to that embassy are surveilled, photographed, filmed and recorded in multiple ways by multiple governments – at least including both the Ecuadorians and the British and almost certainly by other governments and entities. Not only are guests who visit Assange required to give their passports and other identification to be logged, but they also pass through multiple visible cameras – to say nothing of the invisible ones – on their way to visit Assange, including cameras on the street, in the lobby of the building, in the reception area of the Embassy, and then in the rooms where one meets Assange. In 2015, the BBC reported that “Scotland Yard has spent about £10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claimed asylum there,” and that “between June 2012 and October 2014, direct policing costs were £7.3m, with £1.8m spent on overtime.” Meanwhile, just a few months ago, the very same Guardian that now wants you to believe that a person as prominent as Manafort visited Assange without having you see any video footage proving this happened, itself claimed that “Ecuador bankrolled a multimillion-dollar spy operation to protect and support Julian Assange in its central London embassy, employing an international security company and undercover agents to monitor his visitors, embassy staff and even the British police,” This leads to one indisputable fact: if Paul Manafort (or, for that matter, Roger Stone), visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that. So why would any minimally rational, reasonable person possibly assume these anonymous claims are true rather than waiting to form a judgment once the relevant evidence is available? As President Obama’s former national security aide and current podcast host Tommy Vietor put it: “If these meetings happened, British intelligence would almost certainly have video of him entering and exiting,” adding: “seems dubious.” THERE ARE, as I noted, multiple other reasons to exercise skepticism with this story. To begin with, the Guardian, an otherwise solid and reliable paper, has such a pervasive and unprofessionally personal hatred for Julian Assange that it has frequently dispensed with all journalistic standards in order to malign him. One of the most extreme of many instances occurred in late 2016 when the paper was forced to retract a remarkably reckless (but predictably viral) Ben Jacobs story that claimed, with zero evidence, that “Assange has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime.” Then there are the glaring omissions in today’s story. As noted, every guest visiting Assange is logged in through a very intricate security system. While admitting that Manafort was never logged in to the embassy, the Guardian waves this glaring hole away with barely any discussion or attempt to explain it: “Visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports. Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not logged.” Why would Manafort visit three times but never be logged in? Why would the Ecuadorian government, led by leftist Rafael Correa, allow life-long right-wing GOP operative Paul Manafort to enter their embassy three times without ever once logging in his visit? The Guardian has no answer. They make no attempt to explain it or even offer theories. They just glide over it, hoping that you won’t notice what a massive hole in the story this omission is. It’s an especially inexcusable omission for the Guardian not to discuss its significance given that the Guardian itself obtained the Embassy’s visitors logs in May, and – while treating those logs as accurate and reliable – made no mention of Manafort’s inclusion on them. That’s because his name did not appear there (nor, presumably, did Roger Stone’s). The language of the Guardian story also raises all sorts of questions. Aside from an anonymous source, the Guardian claims it viewed a document prepared by the Ecuadorian intelligence service Senain. The Guardian does not publish this report, but instead quotes a tiny snippet that, as the paper put it, “lists ‘Paul Manaford [sic]’ as one of several well-known guests. It also mentions ‘Russians.'” That claim – that the report not only asserts Manafort visited Assange but “mentions ‘Russians'” – is a rather explosive claim. What does this report say about “Russians”? What is the context of the inclusion of this claim? The Guardian does not bother to question, interrogate or explain any of this. It just tosses the word “Russians” into its article in connection with Manafort’s alleged visits to Assange, knowing full well that motivated readers will draw the most inflammatory conclusions possible, thus helping to spread the Guardian’s article all over the internet and generate profit for the newspaper, without bothering to do any of the journalistic work to justify the obvious inference they wanted to create with this sloppy, vague and highly manipulative paragraph. Beyond that, there are all sorts of internecine battles being waged inside the Ecuadorian Government that provide motive to feed false claims about Assange to the Guardian. Senain, the Ecuadorian intelligence service that the Guardian says showed it the incriminating report, has been furious with Assange for years, ever since WikiLeaks published filesrelating to the agency’s hacking and malware efforts. And as my May interview with former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa revealed, there are all sorts of internal in-fighting within the government over WikiLeaks, and the most hostile anti-Assange elements have been regularly dumping anti-Assange material with Harding and the Guardian, knowing full well that the paper’s years-long, hateful feud with WikiLeaks ensures a receptive and uncritical outlet. In sum, the Guardian published a story today that it knew would explode into all sorts of viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly sketchy aspects to the story. It is certainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself “secretly” visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. It’s possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un joined them. And if any of that happened, then there will be mountains of documentary proof in the form of videos, photographs, and other evidence proving it. Thus far, no such evidence has been published by the Guardian. Why would anyone choose to believe that this is true rather than doing what any rational person, by definition, would do: wait to see the dispositive evidence before forming a judgment? The only reason to assume this is true without seeing such evidence is because enough people want it to be true. The Guardian knows this. They knew that publishing this story would cause partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news outlets would hyperventilate over it, and that they’d reap the rewards regardless of whether the story turned out to be true or false. It may be true. But only the evidence, which has yet to be seen, will demonstrate that one way or the other. Update, 4:05 pm, November 27: Manafort vehemently denies any meeting with Assange or WikiLeaks, issuing a statement on the Guardian’s report that reads: