Posted on Aug 7, 2018
What Rick Gates’s Testimony Means for Manafort—and Trump
2.69K
49
32
14
14
0
The noose is starting to tighten on these cockroaches LTC (Join to see) Capt Gregory Prickett MAJ James Woods LTC Eugene Chu 1stSgt Nelson Kerr MSgt Michael Bischoff 1SG Carl McAndrews GySgt John Olson 1LT Sandy Annala SFC Shirley Whitfield SSG Warren Swan PO1 William "Chip" Nagel MSgt Neil Greenfield MSgt Danny Hope MSgt Steve Sweeney SGT (Join to see) SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth MAJ Ken Landgren SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
What Rick Gates’s Testimony Means for Manafort—and Trump
Posted from theatlantic.com
FBI
Election 2016
Russia
Crime
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
6
6
0
Regardless of politics, referring to a seated President as Cockroach is inappropriate. As a former Sokdier and too date I do not disparage the seared Commander and chief. It is the authors right to say what they wish, I personally do not participate on this site to support such dialog. In fact I am here to support the past and future service members and the military. The article itself was a forgone dialog the person up on charges may fit that analogy. If the President is guilty of something, and that was not even a part of the article, then he will be placed on trial like any man. Thank you for your service.
(6)
(0)
CSM Darieus ZaGara
I agree that he should refrain. I am saying it has never been customary for Service Members to make negative comments regarding the CINC. It is not the man it is the office. You are fully grown and can say what you choose. I was sharing my thought and how I was brought up, both as a child and a Soldier. Have a great day.
(0)
(0)
CSM Darieus ZaGara
Thank you. I am always a Soldier. It was my entire adult life. Thank you for your service.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
As much as I agree with you I hope to see more of this similar response when you see Veteran's refer to Obama, Bush, or Clinton by derogatory names. Even as former presidents that any of us can be critical, I hope you condemn any name calling by RP members towards them as well. But two out of three names in the headlines are definitely cockroaches while many others associated close to them are scurrying around hoping the light of justice doesn't find them.
(1)
(0)
CSM Darieus ZaGara
If you knew me and believed what I wrote you would know that to be true. I have never said a negative word about any CINC in my career or since. Thank you for your service.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
2
2
0
I didn’t see anything in the article that would apply to trump in a significant way.
Manafort is on trial for violations of banking and tax laws. Gates pleaded guilty of lying to federal investigators and agreed to testify against Manafort in return for reduced sentence for that crime. Since he has already proven himself to be a liar, his credibility seems somewhat precarious at this point.
Not that Manafort isn’t a scumbag as well though. He seems about as shady as they come, for the most part.
The issue I’m having is this; since he is on trial for charges that have nothing whatsoever to do with the 2016 presidential campaign and in fact stem from allegations of crimes committed well before 2016, how can collusion (for which no criminal statute exists) be the overriding focus?
Since trump made clear we’ll over a year ago that the meeting in question was requested by “lawyer” who happened to be Russian, and in fact, not a government official, under false pretenses of delivering opposition information (not adoption law changes) which caused the meeting to be ended almost as soon as it began was
Made known to him after the fact, what crime was actually committed?
Political campaigns in all parties make every effort to amass negative information against opposing campaigns with such predictable regularity, should it come as a surprise? The Trump campaign wa looking for dirt on the Clinton campaign, as the Clinton campaign was looking for dirt on the Trump campaign, as every other campaign was looking for dirt on all the others. Is the gathering of intelligence regarding opposing forces not a major aspect of our own military operations? Would political campaigns not use intelligence to their own advantage if they could?
Since every single indictment so far and every single charge filed up to this point has been for offenses totally unrelated to the 2016 presidential campaign, howbiabit that the current president should be worried? Especially given the fact that federal authorities, and even the DOJ and FBI have repeatedly stated that they have found no evidence of wrongdoing of any kind whatsoever on the part of the Trump campaign since Mueller was appointed to hwadna apecial counsel to investigate the specific allegations of “collusion”. (Again, for which no criminal statute exists).....
Finally, in this particular situation, with this special counsel, which has apparently devolved into an investigation in search of crime where no evidence of a crime has been found to exist in regards to the Trump campaign, how much longer will it all go on?
How does a trial for offenses unrelated to a political campaign at all serve to aid a special counsel when any evidence revealed before that court would have to be specific to the charges solely against the defantant on trial for those separate and unrelated offenses?
I’m just asking the questions. Are there any attorneys here who can help answer them for me?
Manafort is on trial for violations of banking and tax laws. Gates pleaded guilty of lying to federal investigators and agreed to testify against Manafort in return for reduced sentence for that crime. Since he has already proven himself to be a liar, his credibility seems somewhat precarious at this point.
Not that Manafort isn’t a scumbag as well though. He seems about as shady as they come, for the most part.
The issue I’m having is this; since he is on trial for charges that have nothing whatsoever to do with the 2016 presidential campaign and in fact stem from allegations of crimes committed well before 2016, how can collusion (for which no criminal statute exists) be the overriding focus?
Since trump made clear we’ll over a year ago that the meeting in question was requested by “lawyer” who happened to be Russian, and in fact, not a government official, under false pretenses of delivering opposition information (not adoption law changes) which caused the meeting to be ended almost as soon as it began was
Made known to him after the fact, what crime was actually committed?
Political campaigns in all parties make every effort to amass negative information against opposing campaigns with such predictable regularity, should it come as a surprise? The Trump campaign wa looking for dirt on the Clinton campaign, as the Clinton campaign was looking for dirt on the Trump campaign, as every other campaign was looking for dirt on all the others. Is the gathering of intelligence regarding opposing forces not a major aspect of our own military operations? Would political campaigns not use intelligence to their own advantage if they could?
Since every single indictment so far and every single charge filed up to this point has been for offenses totally unrelated to the 2016 presidential campaign, howbiabit that the current president should be worried? Especially given the fact that federal authorities, and even the DOJ and FBI have repeatedly stated that they have found no evidence of wrongdoing of any kind whatsoever on the part of the Trump campaign since Mueller was appointed to hwadna apecial counsel to investigate the specific allegations of “collusion”. (Again, for which no criminal statute exists).....
Finally, in this particular situation, with this special counsel, which has apparently devolved into an investigation in search of crime where no evidence of a crime has been found to exist in regards to the Trump campaign, how much longer will it all go on?
How does a trial for offenses unrelated to a political campaign at all serve to aid a special counsel when any evidence revealed before that court would have to be specific to the charges solely against the defantant on trial for those separate and unrelated offenses?
I’m just asking the questions. Are there any attorneys here who can help answer them for me?
(2)
(0)
SSG Ronald Bloodworth
Regarding media coverage of POTUS, I can feel the bias and vitriol in almost every syllable they utter about him in the alphabet networks and I don’t see you as being objective either. When 90% of the coverage is negative and knots every positive speck of an administration or a president ignored, there exists an obvious bias, and that I should not be the purpose of a free press whether constitutionally protected or not. When a supposed news anchor blatantly speaks of having a “thrill run up his leg” simply from hearing one POTUS speak and then refuses to acknowledge even one positive aspect of another, there exists bias. When these same “journalists” deliberately attempt to downplay and hide attendance numbers of one candidate’s events and simultaneously overstate and inflate attendance numbers for his opposition, there is bias. This has been done to this president in the extreme and statistics clearly demonstrate that point. I honestly believe that if POTUS were yo go out and walk on water across Chesapeake Bay, the the next Fay’s headlines would read “BREAKING NEWS! TRUMP CAN’T SWIM!”
I disagree that POTUS has called the media n enemy of the people. His exact words were that “FAKE NEWS” is the enemy of the people; Not the press or media. Again, those words have been twisted by idinviduala within the media who are trying to make the news about them instead of simply reporting facts s they are.
In contrast, while not specifically stating POTUS is an enemy of the people, there has still been a never ending drumbeat, even before his inauguration, that he has going to “drive the economy into free fall”, that he is racist, homophobic, mesogenist, xenophobic, a criminal, a traitor, extremist, advocates violence against minorities, hates immigrants, stela children from their parents, wants people who don’t look like him to die, balled him a Nazi. A fascist, a dictator, a Russian plant, Putin’s puppet, A murderer, and untold numbers of other vile, pejorative descriptions. This has been individuals in the media: journalists, guests on media outlets, even elected members of our own bicameral congress! I those things are not an implication that one is an enemy of the people, I honestly don’t know what is. Although many don’t come right out and at the words verbatum, their meaning is patently clear. And while POTUS readily acknowledges that there are many fine honorable journalists, he does point out those who have not been that in any way. Once again, his actual words were manipulated by ambitious, agenda driven psychophants who want nothing more than to see him utterly destroyed and their malice toward him is palpable across the width and breadth of mainstream news outlets.
https://www.lifezette.com/2017/12/study-finds-90-percent-of-abc-cbs-nbc-trump-coverage-is-negative/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/harvard-study-trump-most-negative-coverage/G
Thats just one instance. There are more. Most journalists and lost no democrat at all have even one positive word bout POTUS. I think they have given up any pretense of objectivity long ago and seek only to destroy his presidency and him personally, at any cost.
Just my opinion...
I disagree that POTUS has called the media n enemy of the people. His exact words were that “FAKE NEWS” is the enemy of the people; Not the press or media. Again, those words have been twisted by idinviduala within the media who are trying to make the news about them instead of simply reporting facts s they are.
In contrast, while not specifically stating POTUS is an enemy of the people, there has still been a never ending drumbeat, even before his inauguration, that he has going to “drive the economy into free fall”, that he is racist, homophobic, mesogenist, xenophobic, a criminal, a traitor, extremist, advocates violence against minorities, hates immigrants, stela children from their parents, wants people who don’t look like him to die, balled him a Nazi. A fascist, a dictator, a Russian plant, Putin’s puppet, A murderer, and untold numbers of other vile, pejorative descriptions. This has been individuals in the media: journalists, guests on media outlets, even elected members of our own bicameral congress! I those things are not an implication that one is an enemy of the people, I honestly don’t know what is. Although many don’t come right out and at the words verbatum, their meaning is patently clear. And while POTUS readily acknowledges that there are many fine honorable journalists, he does point out those who have not been that in any way. Once again, his actual words were manipulated by ambitious, agenda driven psychophants who want nothing more than to see him utterly destroyed and their malice toward him is palpable across the width and breadth of mainstream news outlets.
https://www.lifezette.com/2017/12/study-finds-90-percent-of-abc-cbs-nbc-trump-coverage-is-negative/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/harvard-study-trump-most-negative-coverage/G
Thats just one instance. There are more. Most journalists and lost no democrat at all have even one positive word bout POTUS. I think they have given up any pretense of objectivity long ago and seek only to destroy his presidency and him personally, at any cost.
Just my opinion...
Study Finds 90 Percent of ABC, CBS, NBC Trump Coverage Is Negative
Media Research Center confirms the 'Big Three' networks' biased reporting throughout September, October and November
(0)
(0)
SSG Ronald Bloodworth
Regarding media coverage of POTUS, I can feel the bias and vitriol in almost every syllable they utter about him in the alphabet networks and I don’t see you as being objective either. When 90% of the coverage is negative and knots every positive speck of an administration or a president ignored, there exists an obvious bias, and that I should not be the purpose of a free press whether constitutionally protected or not. When a supposed news anchor blatantly speaks of having a “thrill run up his leg” simply from hearing one POTUS speak and then refuses to acknowledge even one positive aspect of another, there exists bias. When these same “journalists” deliberately attempt to downplay and hide attendance numbers of one candidate’s events and simultaneously overstate and inflate attendance numbers for his opposition, there is bias. This has been done to this president in the extreme and statistics clearly demonstrate that point. I honestly believe that if POTUS were yo go out and walk on water across Chesapeake Bay, the the next Fay’s headlines would read “BREAKING NEWS! TRUMP CAN’T SWIM!”
I disagree that POTUS has called the media n enemy of the people. His exact words were that “FAKE NEWS” is the enemy of the people; Not the press or media. Again, those words have been twisted by idinviduala within the media who are trying to make the news about them instead of simply reporting facts s they are.
In contrast, while not specifically stating POTUS is an enemy of the people, there has still been a never ending drumbeat, even before his inauguration, that he has going to “drive the economy into free fall”, that he is racist, homophobic, mesogenist, xenophobic, a criminal, a traitor, extremist, advocates violence against minorities, hates immigrants, stela children from their parents, wants people who don’t look like him to die, balled him a Nazi. A fascist, a dictator, a Russian plant, Putin’s puppet, A murderer, and untold numbers of other vile, pejorative descriptions. This has been individuals in the media: journalists, guests on media outlets, even elected members of our own bicameral congress! I those things are not an implication that one is an enemy of the people, I honestly don’t know what is. Although many don’t come right out and at the words verbatum, their meaning is patently clear. And while POTUS readily acknowledges that there are many fine honorable journalists, he does point out those who have not been that in any way. Once again, his actual words were manipulated by ambitious, agenda driven psychophants who want nothing more than to see him utterly destroyed and their malice toward him is palpable across the width and breadth of mainstream news outlets.
https://www.lifezette.com/2017/12/study-finds-90-percent-of-abc-cbs-nbc-trump-coverage-is-negative/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/harvard-study-trump-most-negative-coverage/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/09/12/study-91-percent-of-recent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/321781-analysis-only-3-percent-of-reports-on-cbs-nbc-positive-for-trump
Thats just four instances. There are more. Most journalists and lost no democrat at all have even one positive word bout POTUS. I think they have given up any pretense of objectivity long ago and seek only to destroy his presidency and him personally, at any cost.
Just my opinion...
I disagree that POTUS has called the media n enemy of the people. His exact words were that “FAKE NEWS” is the enemy of the people; Not the press or media. Again, those words have been twisted by idinviduala within the media who are trying to make the news about them instead of simply reporting facts s they are.
In contrast, while not specifically stating POTUS is an enemy of the people, there has still been a never ending drumbeat, even before his inauguration, that he has going to “drive the economy into free fall”, that he is racist, homophobic, mesogenist, xenophobic, a criminal, a traitor, extremist, advocates violence against minorities, hates immigrants, stela children from their parents, wants people who don’t look like him to die, balled him a Nazi. A fascist, a dictator, a Russian plant, Putin’s puppet, A murderer, and untold numbers of other vile, pejorative descriptions. This has been individuals in the media: journalists, guests on media outlets, even elected members of our own bicameral congress! I those things are not an implication that one is an enemy of the people, I honestly don’t know what is. Although many don’t come right out and at the words verbatum, their meaning is patently clear. And while POTUS readily acknowledges that there are many fine honorable journalists, he does point out those who have not been that in any way. Once again, his actual words were manipulated by ambitious, agenda driven psychophants who want nothing more than to see him utterly destroyed and their malice toward him is palpable across the width and breadth of mainstream news outlets.
https://www.lifezette.com/2017/12/study-finds-90-percent-of-abc-cbs-nbc-trump-coverage-is-negative/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/harvard-study-trump-most-negative-coverage/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/09/12/study-91-percent-of-recent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/321781-analysis-only-3-percent-of-reports-on-cbs-nbc-positive-for-trump
Thats just four instances. There are more. Most journalists and lost no democrat at all have even one positive word bout POTUS. I think they have given up any pretense of objectivity long ago and seek only to destroy his presidency and him personally, at any cost.
Just my opinion...
Study Finds 90 Percent of ABC, CBS, NBC Trump Coverage Is Negative
Media Research Center confirms the 'Big Three' networks' biased reporting throughout September, October and November
(0)
(0)
SSG James Bloodworth
MAJ Bryan Zeski I really dont think it would be just a simple testimony at this point. In a perfect world, it probably would be, but not in this world. The entire investigation team is bias against Trump. And every question they would ask would be a trap. Not to get to the truth, but to find any charge they can, no matter how irrelevant to the investigation it is. By that I mean, there has not been a single indictment related to the initial reason that started this farce. Everyone has been unrelated charges. And I can't recall a single charge that is related to the Trump campaign. Every indictment is for personal indiscretions of the people indicted. To include the russians that were arrested in Florida. So I absolutely do NOT agree that it would be responsible for POTUS to testify under oath now.
(0)
(0)
SSG James Bloodworth
MAJ Bryan Zeski because he isnt the enemy of the citisens of the United States. Where as the media are so focused on discrediting POTUS, they hardly every report anything positive he has done. Jobs, Econemy, security, GDP, etc. Even fox reported the few positive things that Obama did...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google