Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

[Hawk]

I dunno. That seems like a reach. Davos is not news either way, and I'm not sure that every tick of the clock in the immigration debate is necessarily a big deal.

That said, I agree that it is largely a non-story. It's interesting to know whether Trump did actually order Mueller's firing (and it's hard to credit their waffling now given their past public statements) but the only thing that's really noteworthy is if that reporting is coming from inside the WH or being pushed from outside.

Davos isn't news? We've got the rekindling of the special relationship, the Macron invitation, and Mnuchin inviting trade wars ... in ~48 hours. And the immigration debate is the hottest ticket in Washington. What else is there to cover? Affleck not presenting at the Oscars?

I'm sure that Trump got angry and made it clear that he wanted Mueller gone, so they talked about and examined ways that it could be done ... and ultimately determined that it would be political hemlock and shied away from the idea. To me, that's not the same thing as 'ordering' the firing, but I guess I can kind of see how the two might become blurred and the inferences one might draw from him wanting to remove Mueller.

[Hawk]

I'll also underscore what bravesnumberone said--you're potentially making some big assumptions about who's leaking and why. I certainly don't know where the Mueller probe is going to end up, but the pov that there's nothing going on because it isn't leaking big news seems excessively sanguine.

I suspect (and this is admittedly JMO) that the RNC types who've served in the WH but aren't ride-or-die Trumpers are going to be more and more chatty as time passes.

In all fairness, I specifically addressed that point and said that my comments didn't mean that nothing was going on at all.

I don't see my assumptions (which are at least based in fact) any more egregious than the ones that characterize this leak as a move designed to prevent the President from firing Mueller. But, like I said in a previous post, this palace intrigue **** makes my head spin. I was reading an article in the NYT last night about Kelly and the immigration meeting/unplanned Trump remarks to reporters and how it may have been Trump's design to prevent Kelly from leaking otr ... or it could have been Trump just being excited and chatty about Davos.

[Julio3000]

Convicting Strzok and Page for what? Honest question: what have they done that's risen beyond internal administrative infractions?

As for "nothing of consequence having dropped in quite some time" ... less time has passed between the Flynn plea and today than between the Papadopoulos plea and the Flynn deal. You may be right, but it hardly seems like something to go to the mat on.

Gates is going to flip on Manafort. That may have no bearing on the bigger picture, but it's been pretty clearly telegraphed that there's more **** to drop in their case. Neither of those guys may have anything to offer on anyone else, but it seems premature to draw the conclusion that there's nothing there.

[Julio3000]

In all fairness, I specifically addressed that point and said that my comments didn't mean that nothing was going on at all.

I don't see my assumptions (which are at least based in fact) any more egregious than the ones that characterize this leak as a move designed to prevent the President from firing Mueller. But, like I said in a previous post, this palace intrigue **** makes my head spin. I was reading an article in the NYT last night about Kelly and the immigration meeting/unplanned Trump remarks to reporters and how it may have been Trump's design to prevent Kelly from leaking otr ... or it could have been Trump just being excited and chatty about Davos.

FWIW agree that the palace intrigue stuff is way overheated.

[Hawk]

Convicting Strzok and Page for what? Honest question: what have they done that's risen beyond internal administrative infractions?

I've only followed the fracas at arm's length, but I think a crusading prosecutor could go after them for negligence under any number of federal statues on the transmission of privileged information/dissimentation of protected investigation materials.

Gates is going to flip on Manafort. That may have no bearing on the bigger picture, but it's been pretty clearly telegraphed that there's more **** to drop in their case. Neither of those guys may have anything to offer on anyone else, but it seems premature to draw the conclusion that there's nothing there.

Maybe. We shall see.

[bravesnumberone]

1. If there were discussions that sensitive, a “lower-level” staff member is likely not the source of the leak. It’s more likely to Julio’s point that Priebus or Bannon, or one of the lawyers is leaking stuff than Derek, the coffee boy.
2. What about this “bodes well?” And what is your definition of “of consequence?” My understanding is the White House has significantly tightened down with restrictions because Trump was suspicious of leakers. I also suspect Mueller tries to run a fairly tight ship to so specific details he’s working on aren’t broadcast everywhere. Stormy Daniels? Who? I thought she didn’t exist. What private LLC in Delaware? What $130K and NDA?
3. Dude…asked Comey to let the Flynn thing go. Fired Comey. Told Lester Holt it wasn’t because Comey was taller and uses scary Bible quotes on Twitter, but over this Russia thing. As reported, orders Mueller’s firing, backs down when the counsel to the office of the president threatens to quit.
4. That’s fine. Sounds to me like Trump had supposedly identified the reasons, or more likely another of his lawyers brought them up and McGahn disagreed. But I never said the coming up with possible COIs is a criminal action. The golf-fee one is quite absurd, though. On this topic, I am interested to hear more of the background of Mueller interviewing to be Comey’s replacement.
5. I bring up the plea deals because A.) it’s not typical to wake up and say you’re going to lie to the FBI today. If they lied over I met so-and-so on a Tuesday, not the following Monday, they aren’t going to lie down and take a plea deal. To say that this all is nothing is just horse ****. What is a slam dunk for Strzok and Page to go to prison? Cheating on their spouses? It’s ****ty of them, to be sure, but hell, you can do that and still be president in this country.
6. K.

[bravesnumberone]

FWIW agree that the palace intrigue stuff is way overheated.

Agreed. I think it was more Trump wanting to be seen. He loves the attention. I am not going to be surprised if Kelly steps aside at some point relatively soon, though.

[Hawk]

1. If there were discussions that sensitive, a “lower-level” staff member is likely not the source of the leak. It’s more likely to Julio’s point that Priebus or Bannon, or one of the lawyers is leaking stuff than Derek, the coffee boy.

It's naturally sensitive because it's a discussion between the attorney and his client and these types of meetings are governed by very specific sets of rules. Bannon and Priebus, as advisors to Trump, would have been bound by the privilege, too. If either was indeed the source of the leak then they violated the parameters of the confidentiality agreement and that particular evidence/circumstance would be inadmissible in court (goodbye, thinly supported obstruction charge). That's why I suggested a non-essential staff member. Non-essential doesn't mean Derek the coffee lad.

2. What about this “bodes well?” And what is your definition of “of consequence?” My understanding is the White House has significantly tightened down with restrictions because Trump was suspicious of leakers. I also suspect Mueller tries to run a fairly tight ship to so specific details he’s working on aren’t broadcast everywhere. Stormy Daniels? Who? I thought she didn’t exist. What private LLC in Delaware? What $130K and NDA?

It bodes well because it's toothless and it literally means squat.

3. Dude…asked Comey to let the Flynn thing go. Fired Comey. Told Lester Holt it wasn’t because Comey was taller and uses scary Bible quotes on Twitter, but over this Russia thing. As reported, orders Mueller’s firing, backs down when the counsel to the office of the president threatens to quit.

Yes, and, again, I'm asking you to tell me what you think this constitutes. You already said it 'might not be' obstruction of justice. Then what is it?

4. That’s fine. Sounds to me like Trump had supposedly identified the reasons, or more likely another of his lawyers brought them up and McGahn disagreed. But I never said the coming up with possible COIs is a criminal action. The golf-fee one is quite absurd, though. On this topic, I am interested to hear more of the background of Mueller interviewing to be Comey’s replacement.

Is it absurd? That type of COI would get you removed from a jury pool.

5. I bring up the plea deals because A.) it’s not typical to wake up and say you’re going to lie to the FBI today. If they lied over I met so-and-so on a Tuesday, not the following Monday, they aren’t going to lie down and take a plea deal. To say that this all is nothing is just horse ****. What is a slam dunk for Strzok and Page to go to prison? Cheating on their spouses? It’s ****ty of them, to be sure, but hell, you can do that and still be president in this country.

See my other post.

6. K.

Aight.

[AerchAngel]

In the end when nothing happens there is going to be a lot of pissed off people.

[bravesnumberone]

If he's ordering a crime to be committed, privilege isn't going to stand up in court. McGahn represents the office of the president, not Trump himself in all circumstances necessarily.

I guess you can have the opinion that it literally means squat.

I think it most likely is obstruction of justice. But little words in statutes will be argued endlessly by lawyers. What is "is?" Bull**** like that.

Yes, it's absurd and already been debunked. Jury pool, what are you talking about?

I haven't seen it argued where Strzok and Page could be prosecuted under that, but that isn't even close to the equating with the Mueller investigation into whether there was collusion, why there would be collusion and whether or not investigations into those matters were obstructed.

[bravesnumberone]

In the end when nothing happens there is going to be a lot of pissed off people.

At minimum, if Mueller is allowed to finish, there's going to be a report from him. I think he would have to go through DOJ which would then forward the report to Congress and a recommendation on whether or not Trump has committed impeachable offenses. At that point it will be in Congress' hands. Unless the Democrats take over Congress, which is far from a good bet or unless Trump is literally found on tapes a la Nixon or is proven to have farted in Jesus Christ's face, Republicans will not go along with it. Party > country

[Hawk]

If he's ordering a crime to be committed, privilege isn't going to stand up in court. McGahn represents the office of the president, not Trump himself in all circumstances necessarily.

What? Firing Mueller isn't in and of itself a criminal action. Firing Mueller to specifically obfuscate the Russian investigation would have been. All of this would have been determined after the fact, if there was any legitimacy to it.

Where are you seeing it reported that Trump wanted to fire Mueller specifically to end the investigation?

I think it most likely is obstruction of justice. But little words in statutes will be argued endlessly by lawyers. What is "is?" Bull**** like that.

Well, that, but it's really easy to defend a case that is based on indemonstrable proof.

Yes, it's absurd and already been debunked. Jury pool, what are you talking about?

It would have been absurd if they actually went with that COI as a reason to fire Mueller. They didn't. That it was discussed is not absurd.

I haven't seen it argued where Strzok and Page could be prosecuted under that, but that isn't even close to the equating with the Mueller investigation into whether there was collusion, why there would be collusion and whether or not investigations into those matters were obstructed.

Right, but you are propping up instances of convictions and guilty pleas that have no direct parallel to collusion/obstruction to substantially over-exaggerate your case.

[Julio3000]

I've only followed the fracas at arm's length, but I think a crusading prosecutor could go after them for negligence under any number of federal statues on the transmission of privileged information/dissimentation of protected investigation materials.

Errr...what, specifically? You said that they could be slam-dunk prosecuted immediately. I'm keeping an open mind here and giving you the latitude to run wild.

I'm not familiar with the entirety of their exchanges, but I'm not sure what "transmission of privileged information/dissemination of protected investigation materials" we're talking about here.

[Hawk]

I don't think I need much latitude to find a conviction (even if it were for something as cursory as a violation of the Privacy Act) in ~400 pages of text messages.

[Julio3000]

Right, but you are propping up instances of convictions and guilty pleas that have no direct parallel to collusion/obstruction to substantially over-exaggerate your case.

Again, you're glossing over Papa's plea. Regardless of the open question of the result of his actions, he pleaded guilty to lying about actions which specifically related to the Russian government offering information that was damaging to HRC. And while I'm genuinely perplexed as to why Flynn would lie about his conversation with the Ambassador, it certainly fit a broad template of denying (in testimony, in disclosure forms) official contacts...Sessions, Kushner, McFarland, Junior, and others are in the same boat. It's entirely reasonable to ask why, and to what end, even if the answer is not as sexy as we'd like.

My baseline question: why lie about all of it? Why not just accept the fact of attempted Russian interference and cast yourselves as victims?

[Hawk]

While Starr was trying to make his case, Clinton’s job last week was to persuade the American people to reserve judgment, let the investigation proceed and bear with the Great Explainer’s refusal to explain much of anything. So after days of watery nondenials and rumors of resignation, last Monday Clinton finally gave voters who wanted to believe in him an excuse to do so. In the Roosevelt Room of the White House Monday morning, with Hillary beside him, he stared into the camera and narrowed his eyes. “I want you to listen to me,” he said. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never.”

It was an enormous gamble, the result of a fierce White House battle. While Clinton had for days been urged by adviser Mickey Kantor and others to toughen his denial, the Monday morning statement was finally worked out in a post-midnight strategy session with former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes and Hollywood imagineer Harry Thomason. Ickes, the street-smart infighter who had steered Clinton’s re-election campaign only to be bumped out of a second-term job, flew in from California and went straight to the White House. Ickes’ prescription for the President: Look the people straight in the eye and, to the extent you and your lawyer are confident, say, “I didn’t do it.” Only a loud, unambiguous denial would “stanch the wound,” Ickes said. Thomason, meanwhile, helped the President rehearse the stern, reproving body language, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

It was the first of several turning points, and it worked. That afternoon, when Hillary arrived in Harlem to visit an after-school program, the crowd was jeering reporters, chanting, “Leave Bill alone!”

[Hawk]

"Stanching the wound."

You either go all out and deny everything - and hope it goes away.

Or you say, "we met ... but, but, but we didn't do anything!"

I know which path I would advise.

[bravesnumberone]

Of course people in the Trump administration and people in the campaign have given both answers.

[Julio3000]

I don't think I need much latitude to find a conviction (even if it were for something as cursory as a violation of the Privacy Act) in ~400 pages of text messages.

Ok, so you'll take a pass on a slam dunk immediate prosecution? Because surely there's something in there? Like, what provisions of the Privacy Act?

[bravesnumberone]

Ridiculous.