Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[callipygoustp]

Manafort might be one of the bigger fish in this pond to fry, or he might still be bait.

I've expected, from the start, that Manafort would be bait.

Off topic:
Wonder what Trump is watching on TV tonight.

[Bullettime]

Oh ho ho, "Agrees to testify against Manafort". Damn. That's gonna leave a mark.

- - - Updated - - -



Hmm. There is another option: Mueller no longer needs Manafort. Now, this in turn would imply either
a) Manafort's dealings dead-end with him, or go international and the CIA takes over, or
b) Manafort is so provably in such deep connected shit that his word is no longer required.

You're probably right, just pointing out there's technically an alternative.

Eh I don't think it's a case of not needing Manafort. Manafort is a direct line to the source of the money and has the best chance to implicate people in the inner circle.

Having Gates willing to testify is an insurance policy telling Manafort to cooperate or he goes down in a blaze when it comes to the court proceedings. Gates is going to sing like a canary if pressed given how much he has to lose here.

Mueller can also go after Manafort's daughter if he still doesn't play along.

[LaserSharkDFB]

That is weak tea in both cases.

I'll agree on the first one - I prefer the Problem of Divine Hiddenness myself, but we probably shouldn't go there - but the second? Trump hired these guys. Either he didn't know they were rotten, which makes him incompetent, or he did, which makes him complicit.

[Breccia]

Gates is going to sing like a canary if pressed given how much he has to lose here.

In case people had forgotten, Gates tried to fight Mueller with a GoFundMe to pay his legal fees. Gates is not rich.

[Thekri]

I'll agree on the first one - I prefer the Problem of Divine Hiddenness myself, but we probably shouldn't go there - but the second? Trump hired these guys. Either he didn't know they were rotten, which makes him incompetent, or he did, which makes him complicit.

I was going to post pretty much the exact same thing. The Trump version makes more sense then the one about God, because what the first one leaves out is that God might have a reason to allow evil to exist. The Trump version covers that loophole, because Trump would have no reason to allow it without being either incompetent or treasonous. At this point in the investigation that is what needs to be proved, because we know it did happen.

I really don't know which is true. Either Trump didn't know about it, acted in what he saw as good faith, and the last year of desperate obstruction is just Trump's natural response to any form of criticism, or he did it on purpose, knew everything, and is desperately trying to conceal it. I think you could make a reasonable argument for either at this point. He is probably going down either way, obstruction for the first option, and either obstruction or conspiracy/treason for the second.

[alexw]

The Trump presidency is also perfect timing for setting a 'Trump is corrupt' narrative.

I mean, I know you want to make it sound like it's all manufactured as a political maneuver, but Mueller is a Republican and was a perfectly acceptable choice until he actually did his job and started to dig things up about your boi Donnie T. It's unlikely Gates has any goods on Trump, but he probably does have them on Manafort, who we already knew was a Russian puppet. You can bitch all you want, but if it wasn't Manafort, it would have been someone else in the spotlight around midterms. And we'll probably see more people get fingered before then, too.

If you want to complain about bad timing on investigations, go back to November 2016 and complain about Comey saying Clinton was still being investigated.

Oh that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the timing of the trial is perfect for democrats to weaponize it and use it in their mid-term election push. Trump is obviously corrupt. This just lets democrats shout out that fact far and wide.

[Antiganon]

He is probably going down either way, obstruction for the first option, and either obstruction or conspiracy/treason for the second.

He isn't going to go down until Congressional Republicans see it as politically expedient, either due to Trump becoming no longer useful (which is unlikely as long as he has a working pen), Trump being so obviously guilty or corrupt that he is indicted with mountains of evidence, or Democrats controlling enough seats to force a serious floor vote to impeach.

None of those are likely before the midterms. None are better than 50/50 until 2020.

My bet is that Trump decides he is tired of winning in 2020 and the GOP puts up a conventional Republican in his stead.

[PACOX]

Manafort most be up to his neck is shit if he didn't take follow suit with the others who were indicted. He knows he isn't getting off, so his reluctance to cooperate seems like he thinks his crimes are too big to strike a bargain. Make Mueller dig with the hope that Mueller won't find all the skeletons in the closet.

In the past week we've had:

Reveal that Bannon spoke to Mueller for 20 hours
Gates flipping
The man in California indictment/cooperation
13 Russians indicted)


But apparently its still all a hoax.

[Breccia]

Manafort most be up to his neck is shit if he didn't take follow suit with the others who were indicted.

Manafort really, really wants to keep the money. If he pleads guilty, he doesn't get to keep the money.

[Garnier Fructis]

No, it isn't. I don't deny that he lies a lot though. My point is exactly what I wrote, the dude uses words badly, and seem to not know what they mean.

Do you realize how rude it is, to assume people mean things differently than what they said? Asking for a friend....

I mean, all things considered this is a lot less rude than what I was doing in the other thread, which was just writing flippant responses over and over.

[PACOX]

Manafort really, really wants to keep the money. If he pleads guilty, he doesn't get to keep the money.

Maybe he should speak to his boy Jeff Sessions about civil forfeiture

[NYC17]

I've expected, from the start, that Manafort would be bait.

Off topic:
Wonder what Trump is watching on TV tonight.

If it's CNN we'll know after he tweets about how the FBI needs to totally find Patty Hearst.

[Deleted]

Interesting interview with Andrey Zakharov who broke some of the first stories about the troll factory (in the Russian press).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2d514756b9dc

[LaserSharkDFB]

Oh that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the timing of the trial is perfect for democrats to weaponize it and use it in their mid-term election push. Trump is obviously corrupt. This just lets democrats shout out that fact far and wide.

Ah, my apologies, then.

[Poopymonster]

In case people had forgotten, Gates tried to fight Mueller with a GoFundMe to pay his legal fees. Gates is not rich.

Wasn't one of his biggest donors "Ivan NotARuskie?"

[Breccia]

Wasn't one of his biggest donors "Ivan NotARuskie?"

That would be news to me. The “Defending American Rights Legal Fund" (yep, real name) might have been funded by a conspiracy theorist so well known for being a conspiracy theorist a federal judge raised questions about it in court. But as it's now attached to high-ranking GOP members on both directions, I'm willing to guess even the GOP isn't that oblivious to irony, to allow a Russian to donate legal fees to someone accused of helping Russians and still claim to be innocent.

[Tijuana]

Here's just two times. I know...we all know...there's more. These two posts show you don't think there's evidence of not only collusion, but that Russia didn't interfere with the election.

Fail. I literally said provide proof where I denied Russian meddling, and you provide a collusion denial. You people are so used to conflating collusion and Russian meddling, you can't actually distinguish them, even when you are trying to prove someone wrong. It's pretty fucking hilarious. Yeah, just because random Russians committed crimes, does not mean Cheeto Jesus was involved. I don't know why you guys can't wrap your mind around that.

[Hobb]

Fail. I literally said provide proof where I denied Russian meddling, and you provide a collusion denial. You people are so used to conflating collusion and Russian meddling, you can't actually distinguish them, even when you are trying to prove someone wrong. It's pretty fucking hilarious. Yeah, just because random Russians committed crimes, does not mean Cheeto Jesus was involved. I don't know why you guys can't wrap your mind around that.

That's already been done, just need to go back and read the quotes folks have posted, which we all know you won't.

At this point your backpedaling holds about as much water as a bucket full of holes. Which for you is nothing new.

[Tijuana]

That's already been done, just need to go back and read the quotes folks have posted, which we all know you won't.

At this point your backpedaling holds about as much water as a bucket full of holes. Which for you is nothing new.

Nobody has quoted me, with a quote where I denied meddling. I can't read every page of every thread, but since I never said this, I know it never happened. Prove it or stfu.

This dude LITERALLY just posted quotes where I denied collusion. Can you guys legit not separate out the two issues involving Russia? Really no?

[Elegiac]

Have a nice day!

"When I said 'the Russia thing' I was actually referring to collusion between Trump and Russia, not denying that Russia meddled in the election. Why can't you be civil."