US Capitalistic Kleptocractic Swamp 47 Months

Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
171
Views

Re: US Capitalistic Kleptocractic Swamp 47 Months

171 Views
Message 1 of 21

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

Manafort was found guilty on five counts of submitting false tax returns, one count of failing to report foreign bank and financial accounts, and two counts of bank fraud.

 


But where was the "Russian collusion"?


But where is true justice for a wealthy crook when he is found guilty?


But why do you answer a question with a question? 

 

(Answer - Why not?)

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
171
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
189
Views

Re: US Capitalistic Kleptocractic Swamp 47 Months

189 Views
Message 2 of 21

@rk9152 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

Manafort was found guilty on five counts of submitting false tax returns, one count of failing to report foreign bank and financial accounts, and two counts of bank fraud.

 


But where was the "Russian collusion"?


But where is true justice for a wealthy crook when he is found guilty?


tRumpservatives are nuttier than squirrel poop
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
189
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
197
Views

Re: US Capitalistic Kleptocractic Swamp 47 Months

197 Views
Message 3 of 21

@mickstuder wrote:

Two months before the Labor Department reversed course and proposed a lengthy delay for a regulation to bar retirement account brokers from financial conflicts of interest, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta met with legislators and industry representatives who opposed the rule.

 

Evidence of the meetings surfaced in more than 1,000 documents that the watchdog group American Oversight acquired under the Freedom of Information Act. A POLITICO analysis of the documents shows that Republicans and business representatives occupied most of Acosta's schedule during his first eight months as labor secretary.

 

Why would the US Government Not Want to Bar Retirement Account Brokers From Having Conflicts Interest?

 

What Possible Reason Would the US Government Have For Not Wanting to Protect American Investors From the People Handling Their Money With - Conflicts of Interest?

 

Between May and December 2017, Acosta was scheduled to meet or talk 146 times with Republican politicians or with representatives of trade associations and businesses. Among the corporate chairmen whose input Acosta received were Steve Easterbrook of McDonald's and Jim McNerney of Boeing.

 

By comparison, Acosta was scheduled to meet or talk only 43 times with representatives of labor unions, including AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and SEIU President Mary Kay Henry.

 

Acosta met with Democratic politicians or left-leaning interest groups only ten times during the same time period.

 

Source - https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/08/acosta-labor-department-1253185

 

How do you see meetings with Richard Trumka as related to the (actually, your) topic about Manafort's sentence??


Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
197
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
210
Views

Re: US Capitalistic Kleptocractic Swamp 47 Months

210 Views
Message 4 of 21

Two months before the Labor Department reversed course and proposed a lengthy delay for a regulation to bar retirement account brokers from financial conflicts of interest, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta met with legislators and industry representatives who opposed the rule.

 

Evidence of the meetings surfaced in more than 1,000 documents that the watchdog group American Oversight acquired under the Freedom of Information Act. A POLITICO analysis of the documents shows that Republicans and business representatives occupied most of Acosta's schedule during his first eight months as labor secretary.

 

Why would the US Government Not Want to Bar Retirement Account Brokers From Having Conflicts Interest?

 

What Possible Reason Would the US Government Have For Not Wanting to Protect American Investors From the People Handling Their Money With - Conflicts of Interest?

 

Between May and December 2017, Acosta was scheduled to meet or talk 146 times with Republican politicians or with representatives of trade associations and businesses. Among the corporate chairmen whose input Acosta received were Steve Easterbrook of McDonald's and Jim McNerney of Boeing.

 

By comparison, Acosta was scheduled to meet or talk only 43 times with representatives of labor unions, including AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and SEIU President Mary Kay Henry.

 

Acosta met with Democratic politicians or left-leaning interest groups only ten times during the same time period.

 

Source - https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/08/acosta-labor-department-1253185

 

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
210
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
223
Views

Re: US Capitalistic Kleptocractic Swamp 47 Months

223 Views
Message 5 of 21

@gruffstuff wrote:

 

Surely everyone understands that he was not investigated over stuff he did. He was investigated as a ploy of the Mueller goal "get trump by whatever means necessary".

 

Does that seem like the appropriate use of our legal system?

 

 

 

 

 

A Grand Jury looked at the evidence and indicted Manaford as per the Constitutional limitations on government power, Manaford then agreed to plead  guilty, in doing so Manaford admitted  guilt.

 

 

So yes it is suitable or proper in the circumstances, or in other words appropriate.

 

 

What is inappropriate is no sentence or a light sentence.

 

 

Suggesting this was a ploy to  "get trump by whatever means necessary" is a falsehood, a Grand Jury consists or 16 to 23 citizens who don't work for the government, they issued the indictment, not Mueller.



@gruffstuff wrote:

 

Surely everyone understands that he was not investigated over stuff he did. He was investigated as a ploy of the Mueller goal "get trump by whatever means necessary".

 

Does that seem like the appropriate use of our legal system?

 

 

 

 

 

A Grand Jury looked at the evidence and indicted Manaford as per the Constitutional limitations on government power, Manaford then agreed to plead  guilty, in doing so Manaford admitted  guilt.

 

 

So yes it is suitable or proper in the circumstances, or in other words appropriate.

 

 

What is inappropriate is no sentence or a light sentence.

 

 

Suggesting this was a ploy to  "get trump by whatever means necessary" is a falsehood, a Grand Jury consists or 16 to 23 citizens who don't work for the government, they issued the indictment, not Mueller.


The Grand Jury had the responsibility to consider the actions of Manafort, not Mueller.

 

So the Grand Jury did not rule on Mueller's "get Trump" mission.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
223
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
227
Views

Re: US Capitalistic Kleptocractic Swamp 47 Months

227 Views
Message 6 of 21

@oceanedge2 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Surely everyone understands that he was not investigated over stuff he did. He was investigated as a ploy of the Mueller goal "get trump by whatever means necessary".


LOL.....Surely everyone is not an idiot.  Possibly you have your own explanation as to why dt welcomed criminal Manafort into his family fold as his very own, specially designated campaign chairman.

 

Anything you see re "stuff he did" in the "appropriate use of our legal system" to support your tired, worn out, ridiculous, "get trump......"?

 

Superseding Criminal Information

https://www.justice.gov/sco


Any laws he broke were the responsibility of some oversight agency. Mueller was theoretically brought onboard to investigate "Russian collusion". He had a free hand to do whatever it took. He used that authority to find ways to get people to "flip" on the President (his actual target). I do not consider his actions to be inappropriate since who the President "welcomed into his family fold" is hardly a legal issue.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
227
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
243
Views

Re: US Capitalistic Kleptocractic Swamp 47 Months

243 Views
Message 7 of 21

 

Surely everyone understands that he was not investigated over stuff he did. He was investigated as a ploy of the Mueller goal "get trump by whatever means necessary".

 

Does that seem like the appropriate use of our legal system?

 

 

 

 

 

A Grand Jury looked at the evidence and indicted Manaford as per the Constitutional limitations on government power, Manaford then agreed to plead  guilty, in doing so Manaford admitted  guilt.

 

 

So yes it is suitable or proper in the circumstances, or in other words appropriate.

 

 

What is inappropriate is no sentence or a light sentence.

 

 

Suggesting this was a ploy to  "get trump by whatever means necessary" is a falsehood, a Grand Jury consists or 16 to 23 citizens who don't work for the government, they issued the indictment, not Mueller.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
243
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
254
Views

Re: US Capitalistic Kleptocractic Swamp 47 Months

254 Views
Message 8 of 21

@rk9152 wrote:

Surely everyone understands that he was not investigated over stuff he did. He was investigated as a ploy of the Mueller goal "get trump by whatever means necessary".


LOL.....Surely everyone is not an idiot.  Possibly you have your own explanation as to why dt welcomed criminal Manafort into his family fold as his very own, specially designated campaign chairman.

 

Anything you see re "stuff he did" in the "appropriate use of our legal system" to support your tired, worn out, ridiculous, "get trump......"?

 

Superseding Criminal Information

https://www.justice.gov/sco

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
254
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
270
Views

Re: US Capitalistic Kleptocractic Swamp 47 Months

270 Views
Message 9 of 21

 


@rk9152 wrote:

Surely everyone understands that he was not investigated over stuff he did. He was investigated as a ploy of the Mueller goal "get trump by whatever means necessary".

 

Does that seem like the appropriate use of our legal system?


Was the silly, incompetent and failed crackpot republican attempt to find something - anything - to prosecute Hillary for - an appropriate use (waste) of our country's time and resources - or was it just a bunch of republican rubes, dolts, and morons - led by Gowdy Doody - bleeping up one more time just for the practice?  

There's little doubt - they are some of the most highly practiced bleep-ups in the history of the nation...

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
270
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
300
Views

Re: US Capitalistic Kleptocractic Swamp 47 Months

300 Views
Message 10 of 21

Surely everyone understands that he was not investigated over stuff he did. He was investigated as a ploy of the Mueller goal "get trump by whatever means necessary".

 

Does that seem like the appropriate use of our legal system?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
300
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Top Authors