Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
DOJ drops all charges against Michael Flynn!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostDid you even bother to read the source? That was the excuse they came up with AFTER Papadopoulos outsmarted them by leaving the incriminating cash with a lawyer friend in Greece.
I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: none of this is guesswork or speculation. We know for fact how it all went down.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineBoob View PostBut it's not a crime to receive $10k. So what would the crime have been if he had the money on him?
And he admitted that he received the money so why would he need to have the money on him when they arrested him? Why can't they just arrest him now?
Totally lost on this one.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Now this is verrrrrry interesting... when was the last time you ever heard of a judge hiring a lawyer to defend a courtroom decision?
to defend his actionshttps://theconservativetreehouse.com...in-flynn-case/
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI can tell you didn't bother to read the article I cited.
1) He admits to receiving the money. How does him failing to physically bring it here let him off the hook since they have his confession?
2) Why does he need to physically bring the money here for it to be a FARA violation (not laundering)? He admits he took ownership of the money and they have the testimony of whoever it was in Israel!
3) If he was paid money as part of a "sting" wouldn't the serial numbers on the money be all it took to establish where it came from? Why would it have to be "marked"?
4) Why didn't he just not agree to illegally represent Israel's interests if he suspected something? How do you "entrap" someone into entering into willingly entering into an illegal business agreement? Entrapment is a fairly narrow thing and not at all like "If you don't tell me you're a cop then it's entrapment."
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineBoob View PostI read the first one, I didn't read that one. So I read it (If you promise me the video answers some of these questions then I'll watch that too). What I read didn't really explain much though.
1) He admits to receiving the money. How does him failing to physically bring it here let him off the hook since they have his confession?
2) Why does he need to physically bring the money here for it to be a FARA violation (not laundering)? He admits he took ownership of the money and they have the testimony of whoever it was in Israel!
3) If he was paid money as part of a "sting" wouldn't the serial numbers on the money be all it took to establish where it came from? Why would it have to be "marked"?
4) Why didn't he just not agree to illegally represent Israel's interests if he suspected something? How do you "entrap" someone into entering into willingly entering into an illegal business agreement? Entrapment is a fairly narrow thing and not at all like "If you don't tell me you're a cop then it's entrapment."
The set-up was that the FBI was going to "discover" a large amount of undeclared cash in Papadopolous' luggage. This would have given the FBI grounds to arrest him since this "discovery" wouldn't have required a warrant. They jumped the gun and arrested him in anticipation of the evidence being "discovered", only Pap smelled a rat and had left the money out of the country. Now what? The FBI couldn't very well charge him with any crimes connected to the money because how could they convince a judge that they had arrested him based on reasonable suspicion when there was literally no evidence? So then they had come up with some other charge to give themselves an out, and I'm pretty sure you know the rest.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAgain, you obviously didn't read the article. Here's a key paragraph:
The set-up was that the FBI was going to "discover" a large amount of undeclared cash in Papadopolous' luggage. This would have given the FBI grounds to arrest him since this "discovery" wouldn't have required a warrant. They jumped the gun and arrested him in anticipation of the evidence being "discovered", only Pap smelled a rat and had left the money out of the country. Now what? The FBI couldn't very well charge him with any crimes connected to the money because how could they convince a judge that they had arrested him based on reasonable suspicion when there was literally no evidence? So then they had come up with some other charge to give themselves an out, and I'm pretty sure you know the rest.Last edited by JimL; 05-23-2020, 11:33 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAgain, you obviously didn't read the article. Here's a key paragraph:
The set-up was that the FBI was going to "discover" a large amount of undeclared cash in Papadopolous' luggage. This would have given the FBI grounds to arrest him since this "discovery" wouldn't have required a warrant. They jumped the gun and arrested him in anticipation of the evidence being "discovered", only Pap smelled a rat and had left the money out of the country. Now what? The FBI couldn't very well charge him with any crimes connected to the money because how could they convince a judge that they had arrested him based on reasonable suspicion when there was literally no evidence? So then they had come up with some other charge to give themselves an out, and I'm pretty sure you know the rest.
#1) Papadopoulos was lured to Israel and paid in Israel to give the outline of a FARA premise (ie. Papadopoulos is an agent of Israel). #2) Bringing $10,000 (or more) in cash into the U.S., without reporting, is a violation of U.S. treasury laws. Add into that aspect the FARA violation and the money can be compounded into #3) laundering charges.
It is not a crime to travel with < $10K cash without declaring it. If he had come back with only, say, $5k there would have been no basis to question him at all. Your alleged explanation only makes sense if he is caught with the full $10k. And what if he just deposited the $10k into the bank while in Greece. Then he just gets to keep the money? You clearly don't understand your own link.
And your explanation makes no sense. If they couldn't tell a judge why they expected Big Daddy P to have the cash on him then clearly that evidence must be compromised and would not have been admissible during a trial. And surely P's lawyers would have let him know that immediately so it wouldn't work to trick him into a confession or flipping or anything else either.
Nor have you explained why any of this would involve *marked* money.
This whole thing is just so far fetched.Last edited by DivineOb; 05-24-2020, 12:06 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostYour link says this
#1) Papadopoulos was lured to Israel and paid in Israel to give the outline of a FARA premise (ie. Papadopoulos is an agent of Israel). #2) Bringing $10,000 (or more) in cash into the U.S., without reporting, is a violation of U.S. treasury laws. Add into that aspect the FARA violation and the money can be compounded into #3) laundering charges.
It is not a crime to travel with < $10K cash without declaring it. If he had come back with only, say, $5k there would have been no basis to question him at all. Your alleged explanation only makes sense if he is caught with the full $10k. And what if he just deposited the $10k into the bank while in Greece. Then he just gets to keep the money? You clearly don't understand your own link.
And your explanation makes no sense. If they couldn't tell a judge why they expected Big Daddy P to have the cash on him then clearly that evidence must be compromised and would not have been admissible during a trial. And surely P's lawyers would have let him know that immediately so it wouldn't work to trick him into a confession or flipping or anything else either.
Nor have you explained why any of this would invovle *marked* money.
This whole thing is just so far fetched.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAlways have to take into account that "fake news" Breitbart is MM's major source of news.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostOf course. What I find so disappointing is how none of it holds up under even the lightest scrutiny. These people are adults yet they swallow these absurd conspiracy theories rather than just admit that they were taken in by a swindle and cut their losses.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYep, unfortunately there seems to be a whole lot of credulous people out there these days and so many conspiracy theories to take them in.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
yep, unfortunately there seems to be a whole lot of credulous people out there these days and so many conspiracy theories to take them in.Originally posted by rogue06 View PostLike the Collusion Delusion, the Ukrainian Shakedown, and a whole slew of others just like it -- many of which have threads devoted to them here
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostLike the Collusion Delusion, the Ukrainian Shakedown, and a whole slew of others just like it -- many of which have threads devoted to them here
If UKR was a total fabrication why did Romney vote to convict? Just because he felt like throwing his career away? Remember he's got his eyes on another run for the presidency and will have to explain his vote time and again if he does so.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineBoob View PostYour link says this
#1) Papadopoulos was lured to Israel and paid in Israel to give the outline of a FARA premise (ie. Papadopoulos is an agent of Israel). #2) Bringing $10,000 (or more) in cash into the U.S., without reporting, is a violation of U.S. treasury laws. Add into that aspect the FARA violation and the money can be compounded into #3) laundering charges.
It is not a crime to travel with < $10K cash without declaring it. If he had come back with only, say, $5k there would have been no basis to question him at all. Your alleged explanation only makes sense if he is caught with the full $10k. And what if he just deposited the $10k into the bank while in Greece. Then he just gets to keep the money? You clearly don't understand your own link.
And your explanation makes no sense. If they couldn't tell a judge why they expected Big Daddy P to have the cash on him then clearly that evidence must be compromised and would not have been admissible during a trial. And surely P's lawyers would have let him know that immediately so it wouldn't work to trick him into a confession or flipping or anything else either.
Nor have you explained why any of this would involve *marked* money.
This whole thing is just so far fetched.
1) Intelligence agencies arranged for Papadopolous to be given a large sum of cash that they expected him to naively bring with him into the US.
2) The plan was for this cash to be "discovered" as part of the normal customs screening process because this is done without a warrant. They didn't care if he had only a portion of the cash with him, because that would have still made it plausible enough to sit him down under a hot light and squeeze a "confession" out of him. But it was necessary they "discover" physical evidence on his person or in his luggage in order for the scheme to work.
3) It turns out that Papadopolous isn't an idiot and left the cash with a lawyer friend in Greece.
4) The FBI screwed up and arrested him before they realized there was no incriminating evidence to be "discovered". How do you explain that to a judge? "But, your honor, we only arrested him because we expected him to have the evidence we planted! It's not our fault he outsmarted us!"
So in the end, the FBI had to scramble to cover up their busted sting, and so Papadopolous was slapped with a nothing-burger "lying to investigators" charge and served something like 10-days in jail (although considering how hot his wife is, 10-days away from her could be considered cruel and unusual punishment).Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 01:19 PM
|
8 responses
27 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 02:30 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 12:23 PM
|
3 responses
22 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 12:50 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:46 AM
|
14 responses
56 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 02:00 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Today, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
94 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 02:49 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 04:10 AM
|
27 responses
152 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 01:37 PM
|
Comment