Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

Julio3000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep. Not to mention the cottage industry of Trump generated entertainment already on the way, "tell all" books, movies, musicals, etc. If the dozens of parody songs on youtube is any indication, it's gonna be fun. The Oscars may have to create a new category: Best Trump Documentary.
 
Hawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

That does sound reasonable and a best case scenario, but it's not what was leaked and reported.
 
Hawk said:
"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.
Click to expand...

So you are now assuming guilt?

Obstruction of justice or collusion doesn't have to be proven. Only inferring it is a major problem, as we are seeing. That's why it's better to have a President who understands the need to choose words and actions very carefully, dare I say, conservatively.
 
Runnin said:
So you are now assuming guilt?

Obstruction of justice or collusion doesn't have to be proven. Only inferring it is a major problem, as we are seeing. That's why it's better to have a President who understands the need to choose words and actions very carefully, dare I say, conservatively.
Click to expand...

This was in response to the “Why did they lie?” question being posed for the umpteenth time.
 
Julio3000 said:
Your point, when you said "come off it," was that the entirely hypothetical parking tickets that you think could write on the FBI texts is equal in its triviality to the indictments and plea agreements that already exist in the Mueller investigation.

That's a profound exercise in silliness.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that it's any more silly than earnestly maintaining that the existing legal entanglements unequivocally constitute not-insignificant progress toward conspiracy, collusion, or obstruction of justice charges.
 
The Obstruction Case Is Getting Solid
Trump’s attempt to fire Mueller makes clear he tried to interfere with the Russia investigation and lied about his reasons.

By William Saletan

" The latest reports also indicate that Trump’s aides knew his assault on Mueller was out of bounds. “The White House has denied nearly a dozen times since June that Mr. Trump was considering firing Mr. Mueller,” says the Times. In August, Trump’s White House counselor, Kellyanne Conway, insisted, “The president has not even discussed that.” Trump’s lawyer, John Dowd, said firing Mueller had “never been on the table, never.” This stonewall persisted despite repeated queries. Looking back, says Times reporter Maggie Haberman, “I’m a little surprised at how effective people in the White House were at lying to us about what was actually going on at the time.” But why the need to lie and lie, if the attempt to fire Mueller was nothing to be ashamed of?

To impeach and remove a president for obstructing justice, you need to show that his intent in targeting investigators was corrupt. The easy way is to find tapes in which he talks explicitly about orchestrating false testimony. The harder way is to show that he has repeatedly lied about his motives and has maneuvered to control the investigation, despite warnings to back off. Trump’s assault on Mueller, coupled with his previous assaults on Comey, Sessions, Rosenstein, and McCabe, solidifies that case. He obstructed justice."
 
thethe said:
How is preferential treatment towards a suspect in a federal investigation not a big deal? Is it on the scale of something like the Manafort issue? No, but I'm not sure it's much further behind.
Click to expand...

I've been assured that there's nothing but administrative indiscretion in 400 pages of these texts and that no charges of any nature could be produced and we all should practice jazz contortion and bury any concerns we might have about it.
 
Hawk said:
I've been assured that there's nothing but administrative indiscretion in 400 pages of these texts and that no charges of any nature could be produced and we all should practice jazz contortion and bury any concerns we might have about it.
Click to expand...

That exchange alone is worth an indictment which would call for a review if every single action taken by the agent while working for the fbi.

And we all need to remember...what has come out is what the fbi/house intel committee has deemed appropriate to show. I do believe thatany exchanges were held back and even some messages released had to be redacted. The very idea that there was redaction is proof that sensative information was shared via an unapproved method.
 
Hawk said:
I've been assured that there's nothing but administrative indiscretion in 400 pages of these texts and that no charges of any nature could be produced and we all should practice jazz contortion and bury any concerns we might have about it.
Click to expand...

No, you've posted some obvious bull**** and got called on it.
 
Hawk said:
I'm not sure that it's any more silly than earnestly maintaining that the existing legal entanglements unequivocally constitute not-insignificant progress toward conspiracy, collusion, or obstruction of justice charges.
Click to expand...

I can't, and don't, unequivocally claim precisely what it means. I think your consistent position has been both wrong ("it's trivial") and a bit of a fudge ("it's irrelevant to so-called collusion"). I think my position is on firmer ground.
 
[tw]957267026900406272[/tw]

Basically what I said. There would be indictments in a second if these texts came out. Interesting that only messages about HRC investigation out and nothing about trump russiagate.

Just remember...Trump has seen them all or have gotten summaries of them. He knows there is nothing. The play now is obstruction and obstructing a crime that was a fare to begin with.
 
Julio3000 said:
I can't, and don't, unequivocally claim precisely what it means. I think your consistent position has been both wrong ("it's trivial") and a bit of a fudge ("it's irrelevant to so-called collusion"). I think my position is on firmer ground.
Click to expand...

My position is that the charges thus far have been basic and/or unrelated to the big C (true) and that you can’t demonstrate collusion or conspiracy given those charges to work with (also quite true). You have insisted that I’m wrong, by pulling the narrow lens card, while using the same lens to highlight your “firmer ground” that because the Flynn and PapaD pleas involve Russia it’s not technically true that the charges are trivial and unrelated.
 
Hawk said:
My position is that the charges thus far have been basic and/or unrelated to the big C (true) and that you can’t demonstrate collusion or conspiracy given those charges to work with (also quite true). You have insisted that I’m wrong, by pulling the narrow lens card, while using the same lens to highlight your “firmer ground” that because the Flynn and PapaD pleas involve Russia it’s not technically true that the charges are trivial and unrelated.
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure what's "unrelated" about Papadopoulos lying to the Feds about being told by a Russian official about their possession of emails damaging to HRC?

And yes, I was surely outwitted by the suggestion that that plea and 30 years of felony weight = spurious suggestions that FBI agents might get fined up to $5K if you could be arsed to look into the matter. It still stings.
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm still not sure what's "unrelated" about Papadopoulos lying to the Feds about being told by a Russian official about their possession of emails damaging to HRC?

And yes, I was surely outwitted by the suggestion that that plea and 30 years of felony weight = spurious suggestions that FBI agents might get fined up to $5K if you could be arsed to look into the matter. It still stings.
Click to expand...

Nothing is unrelated about PapaDs situation. It’s the “basic”/“trivial” part of the and/or.

30 years of felony weight? Julio, come on dude.

You are overplaying your hand so hard.
 
So we are supposed to simultaneously believe that Trump has had financial arrangements with Russia for decades but needed papa to open the conversation up for collusion. Jesus you guys are grasping at nothing.

Simpson didn't even believe there was enough evidence to give to the fbi. You are just regurgitating what the left wants you to. And before you say the same about me remember what Simpson said in his testimony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top