White collar crime isn’t a crime - according to Giuliani.

[Mister Emu]

Following the Russian ties of Truump’s campaign managers seems like a reasonable place to start.

It seems to me to be a stretch to imagine that those tax returns are going to inform you about whether illegal activities took place a decade later, and that if they directly looked into those tax returns it would hardly have arisen from the investigation into possible Russia-Trump connections in the election.

Now, if while looking into Manafort's actions surrounding the election they found evidence of him trying to hide those past criminal actions, that would actually come from investigating in regards to the purpose of the special counsel.

I'm not in a position to know how it came to be, but, I'd like to.

But as I said, that investigation casts a very wide net and a lot of people have been caught in it already.

Broad investigative nets are what I have reservations about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to me to be a stretch to imagine that those tax returns are going to inform you about whether illegal activities took place a decade later, and that if they directly looked into those tax returns it would hardly have arisen from the investigation into possible Russia-Trump connections in the election.

Now, if while looking into Manafort's actions surrounding the election they found evidence of him trying to hide those past criminal actions, that would actually come from investigating in regards to the purpose of the special counsel.

I'm not in a position to know how it came to be, but, I'd like to.


Broad investigative nets are what I have reservations about.

Did you see that your question was answered by another? And it was not from an overly broad investigation. I am sure that I could dig up some links for you.

 

[Shad]

Therein lies the problem. The corporation permits the owner to behave in a criminal fashion and profit from that without a real risk of criminal penalties, this is wrong.

There are risks if far lower and provides a deniability "clause/excuse" . However it takes a separate case and investigation to link corporate action to the owner. After all it is the corporation which is the primary target when it comes to violation of the law thus the leadership be it management or a board of directors, etc are first on the list, so to speak.

It is the law which permits this. What an owner or corporation does with that is different.

 

[Falvlun]

It seems to me to be a stretch to imagine that those tax returns are going to inform you about whether illegal activities took place a decade later, and that if they directly looked into those tax returns it would hardly have arisen from the investigation into possible Russia-Trump connections in the election.

Now, if while looking into Manafort's actions surrounding the election they found evidence of him trying to hide those past criminal actions, that would actually come from investigating in regards to the purpose of the special counsel.

I'm not in a position to know how it came to be, but, I'd like to.

Broad investigative nets are what I have reservations about.

I don’t think they started with tax returns. They started with campaign managers -> ties to Russia -> evidence of income from Russian ties -> Russian income not reported in taxes.

What link in this do you find unreasonable?

Also, because money does tend to have an extensive paper trail, it is generally considered an excellent target for Investigations, as it can provide evidence of various activity that might otherwise be hard to come by.

 

[Mister Emu]

Did you see that your question was answered by another?

The majority of my response was directed to Falvlun

And it was not from an overly broad investigation. I am sure that I could dig up some links for you.

You can dig up links that show this investigation isn't so broad as to cause me to have reservations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The majority of my response was directed to Falvlun


You can dig up links that show this investigation isn't so broad as to cause me to have reservations?

I could probably did up links that show the Manafort case was well within the scope of this investigation. I have no idea if I could allay your fears about it.

EDIT: And when your post appeared I thought that it was directed only towards me. Early morning no coffee yet.

 

[Mister Emu]

What link in this do you find unreasonable?

The part I want to know, is where in investigating what happened surrounding the 2016 election these payments came up. What you seem to be suggesting is that they don't have to tie it to the election in any way other than that Manafort was involved in it. I find that idea disconcerting, and I think that there should have to be some tangible link to the time surrounding the election. Otherwise they're not investigating the election, they're investigating everyone involved in the campaign for any possible crimes tied tangentially to Russia at any time in their life.

I could probably did up links that show the Manafort case was well within the scope of this investigation.

I never said it was outside the scope. I have an understanding of how broad the scope is, thus the reservations. The idea that decade+ old taxes fall "well within" (which implies that things even less related to the election would still fall within the scope) the scope of an investigation ostensibly into possible ties between two entities during an election borders on the Berianesque.

 

[fantome profane]

It seems to me to be a stretch to imagine that those tax returns are going to inform you about whether illegal activities took place a decade later, and that if they directly looked into those tax returns it would hardly have arisen from the investigation into possible Russia-Trump

It seems to me that if there is a decade long pattern of borrowing money from Russian oligarchs that could play into the motives for actions committed more recently.

 

[Sapiens]

Fact: Russia hacked the Dems' emails.
Fact: Trump publicly requested that the Russians send him the hacked emails.

That's probable cause, collusion and conspiracy rolled into one.

 

[Falvlun]

The part I want to know, is where in investigating what happened surrounding the 2016 election these payments came up. What you seem to be suggesting is that they don't have to tie it to the election in any way other than that Manafort was involved in it. I find that idea disconcerting, and I think that there should have to be some tangible link to the time surrounding the election. Otherwise they're not investigating the election, they're investigating everyone involved in the campaign for any possible crimes tied tangentially to Russia at any time in their life.

The point is that, in investigating the Russian connection of Trump’s campaign manager— which seems like a reasonable thing to do if you are investigating whether Trump’s campaign had improper Russian ties— they found evidence of other crimes.

Do you think that crimes should be ignored if they don’t directly connect back to the 2016 campaign?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is that, in investigating the Russian connection of Trump’s campaign manager— which seems like a reasonable thing to do if you are investigating whether Trump’s campaign had improper Russian ties— they found evidence of other crimes.

Do you think that crimes should be ignored if they don’t directly connect back to the 2016 campaign?

Complaining about the rats discovered when the light is being used to discover the main rat seems to be rather strange to me.

 

[Mister Emu]

Do you think that crimes should be ignored if they don’t directly connect back to the 2016 campaign?

The point is that they shouldn't even be looking at anything that doesn't directly connect to the 2016 election campaign. This is a matter that could not have informed in any way about the events surrounding Russian involvement in the 2016 election.

Complaining about the rats discovered when the light is being used to discover the main rat seems to be rather strange to me.

Are you incapable of separating the actualized justice from the method of its delivery?

 

[tytlyf]

The point is that they shouldn't even be looking at anything that doesn't directly connect to the 2016 election campaign. This is a matter that could not have informed in any way about the events surrounding Russian involvement in the 2016 election.

Manafort worked for Donald in his campaign. Top position. You're angry the FBI is investigating a person in the 2016 election campaign?
Do you feel that the FBI should overlook crimes if they aren't related to the 2016 campaign?