Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Belize]

Well I mean he makes a valid point that you can't have a separate precedent that only applies to Trump just because you don't like him.

Except it also applied to past Presidents like Nixon and Clinton in their various investigations, so you can't exclude Trump from a precedent just because you like him.

Inb4 "I'm an Independent and don't like Trump" no one buys it.

[cubby]

I actually think Clinton did not deserve that whole show trial nonsense and Gingrich was doing the same thing.

So you are incorrect there.

How is he incorrect because you also think the GOP acted hypocritically?

- - - Updated - - -

You know, when being taught history, it always confused me to think of how a great empire / nation could fall due to corruption from within. Why didn't the public stop it? It also always seemed like something that happened to countries on the other side of the world... but right now - and I still feel hyperbolic saying this - it feels like that's exactly what we're seeing happen in real time.

I really wish I had @Skroe's optimism about our chances, but right now, even if Mueller delivers the goods, I really don't know if it will matter.


[edit: And to think the party deflecting for Trump impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job.]

Agreed. I wish I had other people's optimism as well. But we are relying on the same sane minds that were supposed to keep someone like Trump from being in the white house in the first place.

I mean - the GOP elected this clown. What. The. Fuck.

#deplorabale45

[Breccia]

You wanted it.

You got it.

Trump's and Cohen's lawyers are attacking each other on national TV and twitter.

An attorney representing Michael Cohen called out President Trump's lawyer Rudy Guiliani on Monday, questioning he and the president's understanding of the truth.

Lanny Davis, who joined Cohen's legal team last week, mocked Giuliani and President Trump over their definition of the "truth."

"Did @rudygiuliani really say on Sunday shows that @michaelcohen212 should cooperate with prosecutors and tell the truth?" tweeted Davis. "Seriously? Is that Trump and Giuliani definition of 'truth'? Trump/Giuliani next to the word 'truth' = oxymoron. Stay tuned. #thetruthmatters."

"Whoa whoa whoa! Stay tuned? For what?"

The next @Skroe ban.

Davis, a contributor to The Hill, made the statement just a day after Guiliani said that Cohen, Trump's longtime personal attorney, should cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

“Michael Cohen should cooperate with the government. We have no reason to believe he did anything wrong,” Giuliani said on ABC’s “This Week." “I have no concerns that Michael Cohen is going to do anything but tell the truth."

Speculation that Cohen might turn on Trump increased last week after an interview he gave ABC, in which he said his first loyalty was to his family and not the president. Cohen is currently under investigation in the Southern District of New York for bank fraud and campaign finance violations.

Cohen's legal team also ended a joint defense agreement with Trump's lawyers.

Davis, who currently works as a legal crisis manager, is a former White House official from former President Clinton's administration.

“Michael Cohen deserves to tell his side of the story — subject, of course to the advice of counsel,” Davis, who served as White House special counsel under Clinton, said in a statement to The New York Times.

Davis's shot at Trump and Guilani comes as the investigation into Cohen intensifies. The same week he hired Davis, prosecutors gained access to more than 1 million documents that were seized in an April FBI raid of Cohen's office, home and hotel room.

Everyone who said "Cohen has flipped" just got another piece of evidence to point towards. Now Cohen's lawyers are asking to tell Cohen's side of the story....which, by context, must differ from Trump's side of the story, which is "nothing bad happened".

I have a feeling things are going to stew for a little bit before they get incredibly ugly.

- - - Updated - - -

In a hilarious --

"Giulliani?"

Yep. He's demanding to see all the texts sent by the FBI on Mueller's team.

"Oh, you mean those two who were fired?"

No. All of them. That's right: Team Trump has said that, while everything Cohen has ever done is privileged, every text Mueller's team has ever sent is now evidence.

Giulliani also called out the "slight opening" for Mueller to ask very specific questions on very specific topics. Translations: questions so specific not even Trump could fuck this up.

[Dontrike]

In a hilarious --

"Giulliani?"

Yep. He's demanding to see all the texts sent by the FBI on Mueller's team.

"Oh, you mean those two who were fired?"

No. All of them. That's right: Team Trump has said that, while everything Cohen has ever done is privileged, every text Mueller's team has ever sent is now evidence.

Giulliani also called out the "slight opening" for Mueller to ask very specific questions on very specific topics. Translations: questions so specific not even Trump could fuck this up.

Oh so they're going that route again where when individual FBI agents have their own thoughts on things that don't line up with Trump's suddenly means something.

[Breccia]

Oh so they're going that route again where when individual FBI agents have their own thoughts on things that down line up with Trump's suddenly means something.

Good point: it's interesting to compare/contrast this with Dershowitz's claim that Trump's motives can't be questioned.

[Dontrike]

Good point: it's interesting to compare/contrast this with Dershowitz's claim that Trump's motives can't be questioned.

Off topic, you've responded to two of my posts with a pretty heavy spelling mistake. Stop having me realize it later!

[draynay]

Off topic, you've respodned two to of my posts with a pretty heavy spelling mitsake. Stop having me realize it later!

If you're outing yourself as self-conscious about it, you're just inviting trouble. /maniacal laugh

[Dontrike]

If you're outing yourself as self-conscious about it, you're just inviting trouble. /maniacal laugh

That's my life in a nut shell.

[xChurch]

Love and hate are not evenly distributed. For example; I expect I'll find a lot of people who dislike Hillary Clinton in West Virginia, whereas I am confident I'd find my cup runneth over with Hillary supporters in Washington DC and the surrounding counties. In the federal beaurocracy, given its HQ, who staffs those places and the leaks from the FBI, Hillary had a lot of supporters.

The problem you are having is thinking in terms of GOP vs. DNC when really those two institutions are more or less ideologically the same, save for the GOP sometimes panders to people with religious beliefs and they differ on Tax Rates. Both are Neo-Liberal political organizations with minutiae disagreements about how best to be Liberal in the end.

Trump is more or less not a Liberal. He doesn't seemingly back an American Imperium across the globe, he has enemies.

I really wish this idea that the democrats and the republicans are the functionally the same would die. It's only gotten increasingly disingenuous since the days of Newt Gingritch, the father of most of this republican hyper-partisanship.

[Theodarzna]

I really wish this idea that the democrats and the republicans are the functionally the same would die. It's only gotten increasingly disingenuous since the days of Newt Gingritch, the father of most of this republican hyper-partisanship.

Perhaps they should have some really significant differences than. Like Ocasio-Cortez, that would be an interesting heart of a political party. Then have a Ron Paul/Rand Paul Party, then have a Conservative traditionalists, and then one Neo-Liberal party and perhaps a Communist for some zest.

America's political parties are marginally distinct.

[xChurch]

Perhaps they should have some really significant differences than. Like Ocasio-Cortez, that would be an interesting heart of a political party. Then have a Ron Paul/Rand Paul Party, then have a Conservative traditionalists, and then one Neo-Liberal party and perhaps a Communist for some zest.

America's political parties are marginally distinct.

I would agree the vast majority of politicians regardless of a party either don't care or don't want to actually effect real change that will benefit everyone, but at least to an almost painful degree at times (Obamacare comes to mind) the democrats to try to seek some kind of bi-partisan consensus. The Republicans haven't even pretended to want that in...decades at this point. That being said the party system in America really needs a ground up rework because it's pretty broken as it stands.

[Theodarzna]

I would agree the vast majority of politicians regardless of a party either don't care or don't want to actually effect real change that will benefit everyone, but at least to an almost painful degree at times (Obamacare comes to mind) the democrats to try to seek some kind of bi-partisan consensus. The Republicans haven't even pretended to want that in...decades at this point. That being said the party system in America really needs a ground up rework because it's pretty broken as it stands.

Meaningful change that will improve peoples lives is kind of paternalistic and relative. But I will agree that most politicians give no shits and are in it for the prestige and the lobbying gig at the end. ObamaCare was just RomneyCare which was just Heritage Foundations idea from the 90's.

The party system sucks because most people don't fit into either "Neo-Liberalism with a rainbow flag" or "Neo-Liberalism sponsored by Joel Olstein."

- - - Updated - - -

Except it also applied to past Presidents like Nixon and Clinton in their various investigations, so you can't exclude Trump from a precedent just because you like him.

Inb4 "I'm an Independent and don't like Trump" no one buys it.

What do you know about me Belize? Considering how much Theodarzna Lore you and friends have invented, I am actually genuinely and sincerely curious what the answer is.

And no, it really doesn't apply to them. Most would rightly condemn just declaring Clinton and Nixon guilty and then hunting down for what they might be guilty of. I don't think we would treat any other president like that, nor should we do that.

[Belize]

And no, it really doesn't apply to them. Most would rightly condemn just declaring Clinton and Nixon guilty and then hunting down for what they might be guilty of. I don't think we would treat any other president like that, nor should we do that.

Except no investigation has just said "Trump is guilty" prior to finding evidence of guilt. Mueller hasn't convicted anyone without mountains of evidence. See: Manafucked for the best example.

You'll have to move your goalposts again. Hopefully you don't mind the exercise.

[Breccia]

I really wish this idea that the democrats and the republicans are the functionally the same would die.

I think that, if you look at the people who are claiming this, it's people who have realized they've backed a swamp-filling loser and they're desperate to Whataboutism to save face. I think it's "Lie Three"?

Yes, it's a massive, hypocritical 180 to support the guy on the basis of him draining the swamp/being an outsider/telling it how it is, only to then have to say "all politicians lie, all politicians break promises, but her emails!" But the other option is to say "wow, okay, I guess I made a mistake." Trump supporters won't do that.

But back to the task at hand: Trump is on his way to NATO where he is scheduled to criticize our allies, threaten to leave NATO again, possibly insist Russia join NATO, then meet with Putin one-on-one behind closed doors with no interpreter or record. While that happens, Manafort tries yet another, erm, "nonstandard" legal move back at home.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team on Monday reportedly requested a federal judge prevent former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort from arguing at his trial that he’s the subject of selective prosecution.

Bloomberg reported that prosecutors for Mueller asked U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to stop Manafort from arguing that the special counsel targeted him for “vindictive reasons.”

The news outlet reported that prosecutors also requested Berman block Manafort from providing evidence that shows he was investigated, but not charged, prior to Mueller’s appointment last summer.

Mueller’s team argued that any suggestion that the special counsel “resurrected” old charges would be misleading because it would indicate the Justice Department had concluded its original investigation.

That's right: Manafort, who has used so many Hail Mary's that he's now a confirmed priest, is trying
1) to use as evidence "I was under FBI investigation for years before being charged" and
2) is complaining that he's the only one that hasn't plead guilty yet.

Once again, Manafort seems willing to try ANYTHING other than claiming to be innocent.

[Theodarzna]

Except no investigation has just said "Trump is guilty" prior to finding evidence of guilt. Mueller hasn't convicted anyone without mountains of evidence. See: Manafucked for the best example.

You'll have to move your goalposts again. Hopefully, you don't mind the exercise.

Did Manafort work with the Russians to change the election results?

And yes, people are claiming Donald Trump Is Guilty, they just haven't figured out what he is guilty of yet. Maybe stick to writing fanfictions about me rather than this discussion/

[some guy]

Did the goal posts get moved again to changing election results? Because no one of any intelligence has claimed that.

[Dontrike]

Did Manafort work with the Russians to change the election results?

It's a good thing no one is saying that.

And yes, people are claiming Donald Trump Is Guilty, they just haven't figured out what he is guilty of yet. Maybe stick to writing fanfictions about me rather than this discussion/

He's clearly guilty of at least obstruction of justice, and I'm betting money laundering. I'd say there's a 50/50 shot on collusion, mostly because that will be the hardest to prove and easy to think either way.

Of course he also is against various other things like emoluments clause and other things I can't remember.

[Theodarzna]

It's a good thing no one is saying that.

He's clearly guilty of at least obstruction of justice, and I'm betting money laundering. I'd say there's a 50/50 shot on collusion, mostly because that will be the hardest to prove and easy to think either way.

Of course he also is against various other things like emoluments clause and other things I can't remember.

Exactly, he wasn't accused of that, yet we are told both by people on this forum and people in the media that its all part of the vast Russian conspiracy against Hillary Clinton

As for Trump being guilty, there isn't evidence, but throwing obstruction of justice after failing to find proof of anything would be a hilarious vindication of the man. A final proof that Mueller was nothing more than a Witch hunt, an indictment just searching for an excuse to be executed.

[Belize]

Did Manafort work with the Russians to change the election results?

Already hard at work moving the goalpost. If only half of Trump voters were as hard working as you, instead of sitting around complaining for jobs to come back.

Anyways...
No one is claiming that. I'm just pointing out how no one was indicted, or allowed to get a plea deal without large stacks of evidence, regardless of the crime committed. Special Counsels will prosecute any crime they happen to find alongside the main investigation.

See: Whitewater turning into a blowjob scandal. Unrelated, yet pursued.

And yes, people are claiming Donald Trump Is Guilty, they just haven't figured out what he is guilty of yet. Maybe stick to writing fanfictions about me rather than this discussion/

Maybe you should stop reading opinion pieces and judge them as if they were facts. It represents nothing but the writer's opinion. People also claim that Obama is Kenyan, doesn't give them any evidence to support their claim.
I'm not saying Trump isn't guilty of anything, but that I'm waiting for an official accusation from an investigation before opening that can of worms. Obstruction looks likely, but that's like saying murder charges look likely when you hold a bloody knife next to a corpse. It doesn't mean you did it, but it doesn't look good.

Here, I'll go write an opinion piece about how moving goalposts should deserve being forced to watch all of Jersey Shore, and you'll go into hiding. Deal? Stop taking opinion pieces so seriously.

[Arvei]

Exactly, he wasn't accused of that, yet we are told both by people on this forum and people in the media that its all part of the vast Russian conspiracy against Hillary Clinton

As for Trump being guilty, there isn't evidence, but throwing obstruction of justice after failing to find proof of anything would be a hilarious vindication of the man. A final proof that Mueller was nothing more than a Witch hunt, an indictment just searching for an excuse to be executed.

What kind of guilty man fights investigations into his administration every chance he gets? Shouldn't he just let the investigation proceed if he has nothing to worry about? Also, what's up with all of these people he's surrounded himself with being embattled with scandals and and sentenced to prison? What about the 20+ indictments, including nearly a dozen Russians?

You deniers keep getting told by Trump that 2+2=5, and your only response is "yup, the math checks out".