Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

nsacpi said:
Some interesting issues raised in this article.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ld-indict-hope-hicks-and-donald-trump-jr.html

It appears that one of the questions being looked at is when Trump learned about Junior's Trump Tower meeting with the "adoption lawyer."
Click to expand...

It troubles me this must be explained / spelled out to people that hold a high opinion of their intellectual powers.

Please, you can agree or disagree on the policy or the legal standing --- but what happened ---------------- happened
 
Hawk said:
It’s indisputable that collusion has been replaced by obstructionism in the popular distillation of Trump’s purported criminal actions. Regardless of merit.
Click to expand...

I think that's a fairly accurate statement, but it is far from clear what conclusions can be drawn from it.
 
I think it crystal clear what conclusions can be drawn.
The prosecutors feel Trump etal are covering up a crime.

whether in fact they by definition, illegally did (coverup) is yet to be determined.
But at the heart is the crime
Bear in mind, Obstruction of Justice does not require a chargeable crime or even the complete successful obstruction carried out

There is always the thing before the thing

and, the question I have been asking for over a year, why are they lying ?
..............................................................................................................

We again go back to the model of Watergate.
Nixon personally never broke into the psychiatrists office or the Democratic Headquarters.
But the tapes revealed his complicity of obstruction.
What at the time people assumed was everyday political corruption
In fact, we have since learned, he was guilty of conspiring with the North Vietnames and that was the crime he wanted to cover.

So what is Trump trying to cover ?
 
57Brave said:
I think it crystal clear what conclusions can be drawn.
The prosecutors feel Trump etal are covering up a crime.

whether in fact they by definition, illegally did (coverup) is yet to be determined.
But at the heart is the crime
Bear in mind, Obstruction of Justice does not require a chargeable crime or even the complete successful obstruction carried out

There is always the thing before the thing

and, the question I have been asking for over a year, why are they lying ?
..............................................................................................................

We again go back to the model of Watergate.
Nixon personally never broke into the psychiatrists office or the Democratic Headquarters.
But the tapes revealed his complicity of obstruction.
What at the time people assumed was everyday political corruption
In fact, we have since learned, he was guilty of conspiring with the North Vietnames and that was the crime he wanted to cover.

So what is Trump trying to cover ?
Click to expand...

might not be a crime...might be something that is politically damaging...but abusing presidential powers to obstruct an investigation into something that is politically damaging, even if that thing is not illegal, is a crime...so is withholding, concealing or erasing evidence that investigators have requested...or lying or providing misleading testimony

i think the above presents an especially challenging set of circumstances when it involves an individual who is a habitual liar and prone to seeing everything in terms of people being for or against him...investigative norms for that sort of individual are perceived as a threat to be somehow overcome or undermined...couple that with the fact you have someone who isn't the brightest bulb and what you get are a series of unforced errors that are from a legal point of view extremely damaging...i look forward to the memoirs of the various lawyers involved in all this
 
Runnin said:
This guy. The cajones don't fall far from the tree.

[video=youtube;g-sP2_RI_xA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-sP2_RI_xA[/video]

I have to admit their obfuscation is very effective. It's almost impossible to catch people who have no qualms lying.
Click to expand...

Obfuscation? Heh.

He says multiple times that he's more than content to let the investigation play out because he believes it's reached a turning point where it's become more radioactive for the parties pushing it than for Trump Inc.
 
goldfly said:
well, if all you do is try to hinder and shut down an investigation

and everyone thus far keeps lying to the investigators

it would make sense for that evolution to happen
Click to expand...

It's not about the evolution (although defending oneself does not beget obstruction).

It's about collusion disappearing from the lexicon of never-Trump types.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Hawk said:
Obfuscation? Heh.

He says multiple times that he's more than content to let the investigation play out because he believes it's reached a turning point where it's become more radioactive for the parties pushing it than for Trump Inc.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He is willing to let it play out because they've created a false narrative to cloud any issue. It's pure Machiavellian. Through the lies, misleading narratives and garbled thoughts he feels they've peed enough in the water. He may be right.
 
Jennifer Rubin
‏Verified account @JRubinBlogger
1h1 hour ago

The paucity of defenders of Nunes on the Sunday shows —

and Nunes’s absence —

should tell you how disastrous the Nunes memo has been for Republicans,

for Nunes and for President Trump’s effort to fend off

the Russia investigation.
...........................................................

or is this just another instance of Trump being declared dead in the water.
Interesting times
 
Actually the Trumpophiles have not been willing to let things play out. They have attempted to undermine the investigation at every turn. Mueller's golf fees dispute as grounds for being dismissed being a notably comical example. Just cuz they're the gang that can't shoot straight does not mean they have not been taking a lot of shots.
 
Runnin said:
Exactly. He is willing to let it play out because they've created a false narrative to cloud any issue. It's pure Machiavellian. Through the lies, misleading narratives and garbled thoughts he feels they've peed enough in the water. He may be right.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, because I don't see anything obfuscatory (or even potentially obfuscatory) in Jr.'s comments at all. He's almost painfully direct.

Anyways, it sounds a little bit like you are preparing yourself for disappointment.

A competent investigation is going to bear out any wrongdoing - and I've been assured that the wrongdoing is abundantly evident, "obvious", and glaring.
 
Jr. can't get on the same page with the other lackeys about A.) what this memo is and B.) what actually went down with McCabe. So don't give me this **** about he's willing to let the investigation play out.
 
I am literally using his own words.

'Let it go. At this point, let it go.'

and then, again:

'So, I want them to come ... but come to a conclusion already, because you've been looking for two years, you've come up with nothing [...]'
 
For the last time, they have not come up with "nothing." That's absolutely false. So just stop. And spare me the two years crap. Many investigations of this nature go way longer and his party has been looking at the Clintons for two decades.

Mueller's investigation hasn't even been going on a year.
 
Hawk said:
I am literally using his own words.

'Let it go. At this point, let it go.'

and then, again:

'So, I want them to come ... but come to a conclusion already, because you've been looking for two years, you've come up with nothing [...]'
Click to expand...

meanwhile back at the ranch...we have guilty pleas...memos...GPS fusion...uraniun...McGahn threatening to resign over an order to fire Mueller

I happen to think letting it play out might work out ok for the Trumps...but they have definitely not followed that strategy
 
Not to mention stalling tactics with testimony to Congress from Bannon, Lewandoski, Hicks. So if Jr. and all these people think it's taking too long, well step up then.
 
Junior also appears not to have taken his own advice and may well have committed perjury in earlier testimony regarding when his father learned about the meeting with the adoption lawyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top