>LOL- here we go again.
>
>>>He worked for the campaign and emailed everyone else about setting up meetings with the Russians to pursue illegal activities. Surely you understand the problem with this?
>
>Surely you understand the problem with loose paraphrasing to justify a partisan viewpoint, or insisting somebody is guilty if they were invited to partake of something illegal but refused?

Do you understand what conspiracy against the united states is???

>>>I am not an expert at vetting government officials - and it's well known that Trump doesn't listen to anyone's advice. He's what you call an askhole - someone who asks for your opinion then just ignores it. In cause you've missed the news flash Trump is incompetent.
>
>As a non-expert, you attack him for not already knowing about secret behaviors. Question: if Manafort's years of corruption were already known, how come the Obama Administration didn't indict him? (Hint- because it was a well-kept secret. As you'd expect.)

Did did Paul Manafort work for Obama?? There is was never a vetting process for him by the Obama administration...duh!! (Hint - you're kellyanne attempt at diversion is waste of time)

>>>Ok did you read what Papadopoulos plead guilty too AND all the foot notes? cause either you missed that or are choosing to ignore it. - you are running away by sticking your head in the sand.
>
>Having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, surely you understand the problem with now acting as if he's a paragon of truth?

Ya and when confronted with the truth (because of this thing we call 'evidence') he decided to tell the truth. You surely understand that putting his record on telling the truth against Trump's record of telling the truth who is going to win that battle right? Plus since he has a plea agreement part of that agreement is that he has to tell them the truth - and I assure you that he's going to do whatever it takes to keep the agreement in place. Again this is a typical tactic used in court rooms all the time. And of course your attempts to make the witness look bad is quite typical too. Look at this way - who has motivation to lie and who has motivation to tell the truth now?

>As for "all" the footnotes: I assume that's another loose approximation of "a" footnote that "can" be extrapolated into a gotcha unless you consider the context- that the Trump campaign declined Papadopoulos's request to broker a meeting between Russians and Trump.That's in the footnote too, even if some confabulists like to leave it out.
>
>Last but not least: why do you believe that Mueller would bury something so vital to his raison d'etre, in a wee footnote? You've seen his indictments that don't rely on reading of tea leaves or other minutiae to perceive his thrust. If Mueller shared your interpretation Manafort would be indicted for that, not just historic corruption and tax evasion which are serious but peripheral to what Mueller is supposed to investigate.

Ok now that's just stupid dude. You don't have to interpret the indictment ok? All you have to do is read it - which obviously you still have not or we would no be having this discussion.