Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
lol. Not quite thethe level but still. Reminds me of when Hannity consistently derails Obama for golfing here and there, but says absolutely nothing about Trump golfing many times more in just his first few months of office.
[TW]956729170700259329[/TW]
[TW]956729170700259329[/TW]
Interesting how just last week the big story was FusionGPS and questioning Steele's credibility. That seemed to have died down once Feinstein released the transcript.
Notice how last week ReleaseTheMemo was the great equalizer and the great hammer to end this phony investigation. Any day now.
Notice how a few days ago the secret society texts were so disturbing and the end all to end all to expose the Deep State collusion between Obama, Hillary, Comey, the FBI, FISA.
Man. This is too much to take in. How does thethe keep track of all these BIG connected storylines and Hydraesque Deep State.\
Notice how last week ReleaseTheMemo was the great equalizer and the great hammer to end this phony investigation. Any day now.
Notice how a few days ago the secret society texts were so disturbing and the end all to end all to expose the Deep State collusion between Obama, Hillary, Comey, the FBI, FISA.
Man. This is too much to take in. How does thethe keep track of all these BIG connected storylines and Hydraesque Deep State.\
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
David Leonhardt
Verified account
@DLeonhardt
3m3 minutes ago
The Fox News timeline is so illuminating:
1. Network star instinctively denies a report that sounds bad for Trump.
2. Fox’s actual journalists confirm report.
3. Star has to reverse himself.
4. Trump cries “Fake News!” and the network re-reverses itself.
Verified account
@DLeonhardt
3m3 minutes ago
The Fox News timeline is so illuminating:
1. Network star instinctively denies a report that sounds bad for Trump.
2. Fox’s actual journalists confirm report.
3. Star has to reverse himself.
4. Trump cries “Fake News!” and the network re-reverses itself.
Did Fox News actually retract again post-Trump denial?
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Not exactly, but they've fudged it a bit.
"Fox News is told, however, that Trump did have conversations about firing Mueller – but it might not have amounted to an outright directive.
A source told Fox News that Trump did not tell White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, but did discuss the possibility of doing so during a meeting with McGahn and others."
Lol. Should be fun watching Hannity work his magic tonight.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-presidents-dispute-with-his-legal-team.html
"Fox News is told, however, that Trump did have conversations about firing Mueller – but it might not have amounted to an outright directive.
A source told Fox News that Trump did not tell White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, but did discuss the possibility of doing so during a meeting with McGahn and others."
Lol. Should be fun watching Hannity work his magic tonight.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-presidents-dispute-with-his-legal-team.html
^
I mean, granted, there's still an ongoing investigation, but when this is the extent of what the opposition has to leak, I'd say that bodes pretty well. And don't think for a moment this non-story wasn't designed to overshadow Trump in Davos and Trump acceding to his DACA promise.
We're already picking the Fox News/Hannity bones for meat.
Anyone with half a brain can see this. If ANYTHING incriminating had been found at this point we would have heard about it. This will for all intensive purposes die off son
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
You guys are fascinating.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
What opposition?
How do you know the extent of what's been told and disclosed?
So multiple events can't happen at the same time? By your logic, is the story on Hillary pushing to keep a sexual harasser on her 2008 campaign timed to distract from this Mueller news?
Trump wanted Mueller gone almost from the start and moved to try to make it happen, using bogus reasons. When his lawyer told him how ****ing dumb it was, he backed off. It's a pretty demonstrated pattern of behavior by this point. Yet he had staff, as high up as Conway flat-out denying Mueller's firing was ever considered two months after he tried to fire the guy.
Yet you were in here earlier in the week saying you saw just as much of a case with this "FBI is in the bag for Democrats" theory when everything these Republicans have been pushing and ****ting themselves over has turned out to be grossly misrepresented.
Huh?
Yes, absolutely. It's all about dominating the cycle. You work in media, I know you recognize this.
CHRIST ON A CRACKER!
And this is tantamount to obstruction how?
Grossly misrepresented?
Something something pot kettle.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Who is "the opposition?"
I don't think you or I know the extent of what has been told to investigators.
It shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Trump wanted Mueller gone. He tried to fire him, using bogus reasons. Reasonable to ascertain he didn't want **** to be found out. And yet people in his administration say no it was never considered. If the reasons he claimed to have were so legitimate, then say so from the beginning. He has already pardoned Sheriff Joe after trying to pressure Sessions into getting the case against him dropped. Admitted to firing Comey over "the Russian thing." Wanted Mueller gone and tried to fire him while acting like he never did such a thing.
An active investigation that has produced indictments and plea deals and you want to play the pot meet kettle game on a bunch of nonsense coming from people desperate to discredit the FBI when every disclosure of said "evidence" is shown to be complete bull****. Even a goddamn senator who was peddling this had to concede that.
To try to equate the two is intellectually dishonest.
Lobbyists, PR, congressmen, partisans, etc., who are opposed to Trump and his administration and have a vested interest in seeing it stumble/fail/flounder/languish.
In what context?
While all that you say here is completely logical, it is most decidedly not a viable case for obstruction of justice.
Of course Trump (and the GOP) wants Mueller to go away. Of course they are going to pursue any avenue to discredit him. Pointing out obvious COIs is an obvious first step and there's nothing illegal (or even nefarious) about it.
Oh, come off it. An investigation into those stupid texts could produce an indictment or a plea deal in the first day.
You keep shoveling **** into a pile and it just becomes a bigger pile of ****.
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
1. The impression I'm getting is these leaks are coming from the inside. Was the genius dumb enough to hire people who wanted to bury him?
2. You tell me the context. You said "when this is the extent of what the opposition has to leak." What do you know that we don't?
3. It may not be obstruction of justice. There's enough there, enough of a pattern to investigate it.
4. They're not obvious and apparently they're not COIs.
5. Show the evidence there's an FBI conspiracy against Trump.
6. Speak for yourself.
2. You tell me the context. You said "when this is the extent of what the opposition has to leak." What do you know that we don't?
3. It may not be obstruction of justice. There's enough there, enough of a pattern to investigate it.
4. They're not obvious and apparently they're not COIs.
5. Show the evidence there's an FBI conspiracy against Trump.
6. Speak for yourself.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
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.
From what I gather, Trump's comments about Mueller were made in a setting where attorney/client privilege was 'active' ... that likely means that whoever felt comfortable leaking them was a non-essential staff member. So if you want to talk about whether or not Trump hires low-level staffers then we can, but both the predicate logic and joke fall flat.
Well, while we're on the subject of context, I said, 'when this is the extent [...] it bodes well'. I never said that more information wasn't forthcoming. It is interesting to note that nothing of consequence has dropped in quite some time, though. Could the well be drying up? Or is there another Stormy Daniels lying in wait?
Enough of what, dude?
No. What I'm saying is that when you sit down with your lawyers and talk about conflicts of interest you look at everything from every conceivable angle and determine whether or not anything stands up to scrutiny.
This is not a criminal action.
I don't need to, apparently. I just need a couple of assorted plea deals and convictions and voila; CASE!
Convicting Strzok and Page is a slam dunk, for reasons completely unrelated to Trump.
Ok.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
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.
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.