Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Felya]

I don't know why he would make those remarks. Carelessness or intentional provocation (which he seems to have a knack for). Either way, it's a bad look.

My point is not even the remark, but the question being asked.

The only time I have seen Trump be clear and to the point, without this careless mumbling, is under oath. If you want to see what Trump looks like, when his money doesn’t mean shit. Check out how he acts and looks during his defamation suit against a book writer. It’s why I want Trump sworn in testimony. I don’t trust Trump, but I do trust the version of Trump when under oath.

Can no longer find video... returns 100s of video that are from last month, that feature a combination of Trump and court. But, if you can find it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/bu...a/16trump.html

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm still waiting for anything illegal when it comes to this Russian related investigation.

I mean tax evasion and lying to the fbi? That's all these extremely liberal Clinton supports have come up with? Wow thanks for wasting millions of tax payer money.

Good to know that Trumpkins are fine with criminals leading the country. So you only care about charges if it's related to Russian collusion?

Or when Mueller finds collusion, are you going to fall back on "Hey, the US has meddled in Russian elections, and we should be friends with Russians anyway, they're not our enemies!"?

[Dacien]

Edit: @Dacien - did you have similar concerns for the country when Hillary was being investigated nine separate times? Could you point to your posts about those "crippling investigations"?

I actually came back on board post-election, but I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me. I didn't particularly have concerns for "the country" when Hillary was being investigated. I thought her use of a private server, then evidence of that server becoming compromised, was egregious mishandling. The investigation recommended no crime, and I grudgingly accepted that. I respected the process. Even in light of all the Strzok stuff surrounding it now, I've only ever used that information to suggest that a closer look into the Mueller investigation into Trump might be worthwhile; I've never suggested the Hillary investigation should be re-opened, was invalid, or anything of the sort.

I'm taking a similar approach to criminal collusion by the Trump campaign or Trump himself, although I'm simply much more skeptical in this case that actual criminal collusion occurred.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I certainly don't think there should be daily updates, but I would have expected bigger bombshells than we've gotten so far. I do feel like Mueller is down one run in the top of the 5th; he could blow the whole ball game wide open with a damning new grand slam, but if he doesn't have the evidentiary hitter to make that happen, the best he can hope for is a tie game. Or worse, Trump comes out looking like the unfairly persecuted underdog winner.

This may sound like something it should not be, but think about it for a second. If various charges are indeed found to be true, this is the biggest criminal story in the US of all time. Mueller's investigation is probably more akin to a large poker game against many people. His opponents are basically everyone involved in the Trump campaign and cabinet. Showing even a single card in your hand is a bad idea, although tactical leaks can be great for making people shit their pants and start talking. Why should we have updates on things he's found, when that basically tells Trump where to hide any proverbial cookies he's stolen? Why not let it all come out at the end of the investigation?

I seriously do not get this obsession people have with insisting they must know what Mueller knows, or else it's somehow not within the bounds of reality.

I certainly know a lot of Trumpkins are incredibly nervous about the places Mueller has been sniffing around, about what he has been finding, and how the investigation is speeding up, not slowing down. They try to hide it, but these constant declarations that Mueller has absolutely nothing (as if they know what's going on inside the investigation personally) just shows how desperate they are to dismiss the idea that they're potentially backing the biggest criminal of a president in US history, even moreso than Nixxon.

[Dacien]

My point is not even the remark, but the question being asked.

The only time I have seen Trump be clear and to the point, without this careless mumbling, is under oath. If you want to see what Trump looks like, when his money doesn’t mean shit. Check out how he acts and looks during his defamation suit against a book writer. It’s why I want Trump sworn in testimony. I don’t trust Trump, but I do trust the version of Trump when under oath.

Can no longer find video... returns 100s of video that are from last month, that feature a combination of Trump and court. But, if you can find it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/bu...a/16trump.html

Ah, a third option then, malice (and possibly obstruction). That seems mighty foolhardy, even for Trump.

I mean, option 2 is foolhardy, but it's more a foolhardiness out of stupidity.

I think it's carelessness, because it jives with his Flynn Tweet suggesting that he fired him in part because he lied to the FBI. I don't buy that he didn't write that Tweet, I think he just smashed his fingers on the screen as he seems to do and included after-the-fact information about the FBI, instead of carefully wording a proper response.

[Felya]

Ah, a third option then, malice (and possibly obstruction). That seems might foolhardy, even for Trump.

I mean, option 2 is foolhardy, but it's more a foolhardiness out of stupidity.

Yeah, I was going to correct malice. I honestly think Trump is trying to do what he believes is right. What he believes is best for the country. I don’t see him as a super villain...

[Edge-]

Ah, a third option then, malice (and possibly obstruction). That seems might foolhardy, even for Trump.

Given literally all his behavior so far, not really. This is a man who changed his story for firing Comey 3 time in a week, and then again recently after Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI. This is a man who helped at least the first of the multiple lies for the Trump Tower meeting that Donnie Jr., Manafort, and Kushner lied about for over a year.

There is no rational though process for Trump. There is no 4D chess. The man has the intellectual depth of a puddle after a light sprinkle.

[Dacien]

This may sound like something it should not be, but think about it for a second. If various charges are indeed found to be true, this is the biggest criminal story in the US of all time. Mueller's investigation is probably more akin to a large poker game against many people. His opponents are basically everyone involved in the Trump campaign and cabinet. Showing even a single card in your hand is a bad idea, although tactical leaks can be great for making people shit their pants and start talking. Why should we have updates on things he's found, when that basically tells Trump where to hide any proverbial cookies he's stolen? Why not let it all come out at the end of the investigation?

I seriously do not get this obsession people have with insisting they must know what Mueller knows, or else it's somehow not within the bounds of reality.

I certainly know a lot of Trumpkins are incredibly nervous about the places Mueller has been sniffing around, about what he has been finding, and how the investigation is speeding up, not slowing down. They try to hide it, but these constant declarations that Mueller has absolutely nothing (as if they know what's going on inside the investigation personally) just shows how desperate they are to dismiss the idea that they're potentially backing the biggest criminal of a president in US history, even moreso than Nixxon.

Don't misunderstand my position. I understand the rationale that this investigation could be drawn out for much longer. I'm simply pointing out that the pleas and indictments so far have been underwhelming, and as Andrew McCarthy pointed out, public relations in these kinds of high-profile corruption investigations are not inconsequential considerations. That's not to say damning information will not come out in due time. I'm simply pointing out that if Mueller doesn't produce this information, this investigation could serve to boost Trump.

But you may be right, this could be Mueller allowing the credibility attacks to build, letting the Strzok texts gain traction, letting the apparent weakness of the criminal collusion case to float out unopposed, because he simply doesn't care: he sees the crushing conclusion that no amount of investigation credibility issues could overcome. ...I'm thinking that if Mueller has anything more than process crimes he can offer, sometime soon would be a great time to do it. Even if Mueller has only been investigating this for 6 months, he has access to any information gleaned from the investigation by the FBI into Russian election interference that they believe was done to aid Trump, an investigation that goes back almost a year and a half.

[Felya]

Given literally all his behavior so far, not really. This is a man who changed his story for firing Comey 3 time in a week, and then again recently after Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI. This is a man who helped at least the first of the multiple lies for the Trump Tower meeting that Donnie Jr., Manafort, and Kushner lied about for over a year.

There is no rational though process for Trump. There is no 4D chess. The man has the intellectual depth of a puddle after a light sprinkle.

I see Trump as that kid who wants to be friends with everyone, but is so spoiled, is impossible to tolerate... but, he is also filthy rich, so you defy the impossible. Trump is what happens when that kid grows up.

He is not necessarily dumb... he isn’t really a bad guy... not necessarily an asshole... but, due to simply the way the dice of life were rolled... he has no optics... no relatable perspective... no way to determine genuine, from sycophant. The guy took his mistress to the same resort as his wife was staying at... that’s not stupid. That’s something else...

[PACOX]

45 is on some type of spectrum, I just dont know which one yet.

[SethRoguen]

Certain republican members of congress are coming dangerously close to full fascist with the hamfisted attempts to discredit Meuller. I mean they had nothing but praise for the guy when he was hired and they thought he was going to play ball and tow the line. The man has integrity so hes a threat. So lets say Donnie Moscow or his accomplices in congress finds a way to get rid of him. You know the guy is smart enough to have some kind of deadmans switch. Is that the point where dragging them out of their offices is justified?

[Alindra]

45 is on some type of spectrum, I just dont know which one yet.

I have my own hypothesis...

[Stormspark]

Good to know that Trumpkins are fine with criminals leading the country. So you only care about charges if it's related to Russian collusion?

Or when Mueller finds collusion, are you going to fall back on "Hey, the US has meddled in Russian elections, and we should be friends with Russians anyway, they're not our enemies!"?

They will just keep moving the goalposts like it's a caber toss.

[Breccia]

If the investigation was going badly, there would be no need for Trump to comment on pardoning Flynn. The question would not even be asked...

Let's add to that.

1) Pardoning Flynn on the sole count he's been charged with won't suddenly make any testimony or evidence he's handed over magically vanish.

2) And Flynn can't "take it back". He either admits what he told Mueller is true, or he says he lied, and bam, lying to the FBI, another charge.

3) Trump can't pardon Flynn for charges he doesn't face yet. Flynn got charged with one crime, his son nothing. Since this was part of a plea deal, the safe assumption is Flynn plead guilty, so that he did not face other charges. They can immediately be brought to bear.

4) And if Trump pardons Flynn multiple times, it really starts to look bad.

5) When facing an investigation for both obstruction of justice and also colluding with Russia, pardoning the person who admits under oath working with Russia, is almost certainly obstruction. Or, at the minimum, impeachable.

6) And most importantly, Trump values people who pledge 100% loyalty to him, but does not return it. If he thinks Flynn has turned, Trump will leave him to rot.

There is no logical strategy in which Trump pardoning Flynn makes sense.

[NYC17]

Don't misunderstand my position. I understand the rationale that this investigation could be drawn out for much longer. I'm simply pointing out that the pleas and indictments so far have been underwhelming, and as Andrew McCarthy pointed out, public relations in these kinds of high-profile corruption investigations are not inconsequential considerations. That's not to say damning information will not come out in due time. I'm simply pointing out that if Mueller doesn't produce this information, this investigation could serve to boost Trump.

But you may be right, this could be Mueller allowing the credibility attacks to build, letting the Strzok texts gain traction, letting the apparent weakness of the criminal collusion case to float out unopposed, because he simply doesn't care: he sees the crushing conclusion that no amount of investigation credibility issues could overcome. ...I'm thinking that if Mueller has anything more than process crimes he can offer, sometime soon would be a great time to do it. Even if Mueller has only been investigating this for 6 months, he has access to any information gleaned from the investigation by the FBI into Russian election interference that they believe was done to aid Trump, an investigation that goes back almost a year and a half.

Stop. Reading. McCarthy.

Or at least try and stop selling it as an objective and worthwhile analysis.

[Dacien]

Stop. Reading. McCarthy.

McCarthy's the bomb.

[NYC17]

McCarthy's the bomb.

Is bomb another name for idiot? Because only an idiot says shit like this...

Andrew McCarthy: “I think we’re ultimately going to find that the real collusion story of the 2016 election was the way that the Obama administration put the law enforcement and intelligence arms of the administration in the service of the Clinton campaign.” #IngrahamAngle

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/940429719870287872

Seriously, this in and of itself is disqualifying. Instead of finding the one guy who reinforces your own views born of ignorance, try something other than the same ole shit.

[Dacien]

Is bomb another name for idiot? Because only an idiot says shit like this...

Andrew McCarthy: “I think we’re ultimately going to find that the real collusion story of the 2016 election was the way that the Obama administration put the law enforcement and intelligence arms of the administration in the service of the Clinton campaign.” #IngrahamAngle

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/940429719870287872

Seriously, this in and of itself is disqualifying. Instead of finding the one guy who reinforces your own views born of ignorance, try something other than the same ole shit.

He has a particular point of view about that. So does Ben Shapiro. So does Mark Steyn. So does... a lot of other right-leaning pontificators. Does that mean I agree with everything they say? No. Do I think they hit the nail right on the head on particular issues or insights? Absolutely yes.

As I said before, I read left-leaning interpretations. The best thing to do when you read a damning report from someone who shares your political leanings is to go read an article from someone who doesn't; you're going to get information conveniently left out or downplayed that will give you a greater appreciation for the full facts of the issue. In this case, in the absence of direct refutations to an arguably niche argument, I'm inclined to believe that public support for a high-profile corruption investigation is not an inconsequential consideration. Even if you have the evidence, if the public believes it's a witch hunt, that's going to have an effect.

[NYC17]

He has a particular point of view about that. So does Ben Shapiro. So does Mark Steyn. So Does... a lot of other right-leaning pontificators. Does that mean I agree with everything they say? No. Do I think they hit the nail right on the head on particular issues or insights? Absolutely yes.

As I said before, I read left-leaning interpretations. The best thing to do when you read a damning report from someone who shares your political leanings is to go read an article from someone who doesn't; you're going to get information conveniently left out or downplayed that will give you a greater appreciation for the full facts of the issue. In this case, in the absence of direct refutations to an arguably niche argument, I'm inclined to believe that public support for a high-profile corruption investigation is not an inconsequential consideration. Even if you have the evidence, if the public believes it's a witch hunt, that's going to have an effect.

Again, you keep claiming that you "read other things" yet you keep quoting and clinging to a person who says disqualifying shit. Andrew McCarthy's dog whistle Fox News nonsense disqualifies his analysis from being worth a shit simply because it belies any objectivity. Objectivity is a requirement for worthwhile legal analysis.

You can keep trying to sell your philosophical bullshit to the 3 people who are willing to buy it, but every time you mention this shitbag it's going to be countered.

[Dacien]

Again, you keep claiming that you "read other things" yet you keep quoting and clinging to a person who says disqualifying shit. Andrew McCarthy's dog whistle Fox News nonsense disqualifies his analysis from being worth a shit simply because it belies any objectivity. Objectivity is a requirement for worthwhile legal analysis.

You can keep trying to sell your philosophical bullshit to the 3 people who are willing to buy it, but every time you mention this shitbag it's going to be countered.

I mean, I don't know what to say, NYC. He's a right-leaning member of the commentariat with a qualifying background to speak on these issues. I really don't want to get into a sidebar about the Obama administration's doings regarding the Clinton campaign, or, more specifically, the anti-Trump campaign, but there's a lot of substance to be discussed about all that. Dismissing his expertise and insight based not on the specifics of what he says about the issues at hand, but on his opinions on unrelated issues, is not a convincing rebuttal.