Flynn cops a plea

[Broken_Erika]

Soon the republicans will fire Mueller and send a great big thank you card to Putin for saving them from Hillary. Every member of the Republican Party will sign it and send it in a nice fruit basket, with an assortment of fine cheeses, some luxury bath salts and lotions and a $50 gift certificate for best buy and a little red frilly bow on top.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Investigating Trump's bank accounts was a "redline" that he drew. Shots fired

 

[Sommerswerd]

Investigating Trump's bank accounts was a "redline" that he drew. Shots fired

I don't think Mueller's realistic goal could ever be to get an indictment of Trump... the goal is to get fired. It has to be right? Trump wouldn't actually allow himself to be charged with crimes by somebody he has the indirect power to remove at any time. So the endgame for Mueller, is to indict everyone else around Trump, then turn the heat up enough on Trump to force the firing. That will be the sign that Trump knows the jig is up. If he actually indicts Trump without getting fired I will be very impressed.

Not if it means 3 more years of this level of corruption and incompetence. Not if it leaves unsettled the question of what crimes a President can commit and get away with. Not if it means 3 more years of international humiliation and backsliding on environmental commitments.

My concern is that impeachment/removal by straight-party line voting (which is how it would happen) is going to be characterized as a coup.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I don't think Mueller's realistic goal could ever be to get an indictment of Trump

It is this weird enterprise that he's embarked on, uneasily between the political and the legal. There's this (untested) principle that a sitting president cannot face criminal charges, so his work won't issue in a criminal indictment of Trump. Ok, so then he's gathering facts that would lead to an impeachment, if appropriate. Well, no, because the body that would be in charge of doing that won't do so.

I think he's just going to gather up all the evidence of Trump's criminal and treasonous activity, issue a massive report and then just let Republicans' inactivity speak for itself: everything that you need for impeachment is there; if you don't do it, it says more about you than about Trump.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well, no, because the body that would be in charge of doing that won't do so.

The more I think about it... I think that this might be the reason Mueller hasn't been fired already. Trump may be quite secure in the belief that as long as the Republicans are in control of Congress he can't/won't be impeached regardless, so there is no real need to make himself look even more guilty by getting rid of him. In fact the way this Roy Moore situation is unfolding, with Trump giving his full-throated endorsement and the RNC and the Republicans basically getting in line behind Moore, is a pretty hard signal that the Republicans will countenance literally anything for their team. So Trump has nothing to worry about.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Before it's over, he'll test his theory that he can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any followers.

How far behind child molesting can murder be?

Dowd and Dershowicz will be out there arguing "The President, as President, cannot be regarded as having committed a murder."

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think the point I was making was missed and it's my fault for being vague.

Putting Mueller's goals aside, I was just pointing out that Trump publicly declared there would be severe consequences if Mueller began poking his finances. I am thrilled to see how this new development plays out.

 

[Gori the Grey]

No, I understood your point. It's a test of whether Trump sticks to his red-line.

The only thing I didn't like about it was that the interviewer put that thought in Trump's head. Rather than asking the open ended "Is there any red line?" he supplied a possible red line for Trump to respond to. Red lines are more forceful, more binding, when you issue them unelicited.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think Mueller's realistic goal could ever be to get an indictment of Trump... the goal is to get fired. It has to be right? Trump wouldn't actually allow himself to be charged with crimes by somebody he has the indirect power to remove at any time. So the endgame for Mueller, is to indict everyone else around Trump, then turn the heat up enough on Trump to force the firing. That will be the sign that Trump knows the jig is up. If he actually indicts Trump without getting fired I will be very impressed.

The sitting President cannot be criminally charged or indicted with anything, though.

 

[Berzerker]

what if Mueller clears Trump of 'collusion' but finds he was helping Russians launder their stolen money with absurd real estate deals?

 

[metalhead]

The more I think about it... I think that this might be the reason Mueller hasn't been fired already. Trump may be quite secure in the belief that as long as the Republicans are in control of Congress he can't/won't be impeached regardless, so there is no real need to make himself look even more guilty by getting rid of him. In fact the way this Roy Moore situation is unfolding, with Trump giving his full-throated endorsement and the RNC and the Republicans basically getting in line behind Moore, is a pretty hard signal that the Republicans will countenance literally anything for their team. So Trump has nothing to worry about.

I think it might be even simpler than that.

Look at what just happened with Paul Manafort. Last week he gets his release conditions relaxed; a week later he gets the relaxed conditions rescinded for . . . teaming up with a Russian intelligence agent to ghost-write an op-ed explaining away his actions. I mean, you literally could not make this up because it is utterly inconceivable that a person would behave this way. Unless . . .

Unless they had been behaving that way for 4 decades and never before faced any consequences for it. Trump is a 70 year old man that has spent his life ripping people off and sexually assaulting women. Refusing to rent to black people and running casinos so badly that they went bankrupt at a time that wasn't considered to be a thing that could possibly happen. Laundering money and committing any number of frauds. And he has yet to face a single negative consequence for a lifetime of terrible, **** behavior. In fact he's now President of the fudging United States!

I don't know that Trump understands consequences. I don't think the idea that he could actually end up in a jumpsuit has ever even crossed his mind. Why would it? He's got a lifetime of evidence that says he is utterly bulletproof. He's failed up so many times he probably believes he literally can't do anything wrong. He's broken so many laws and mistreated so many people and yet now sits in the most powerful office in the world.

Trump's only beef with Mueller is that Mueller makes him look bad. He gets negative press from it. That's all. It pisses him off, but that passes and then he's fine until the next storm. I really don't think Trump believes he will face any actual consequences from this. He probably can't even fathom the idea of facing consequences for anything. Seriously. Because if Trump really thought there was even a hint that he could face legal jeopardy, he'd have fired Mueller months ago. Truth be told, a lot of people would have if they were in that situation. That's why the financial stuff is his so-called red line. That's where the embarrassing truth lies.

 

[innonimatu]

So Flynn admitted lying about meeting the Russian ambassador and KT McFarland's back in trouble for not telling about her knowledge of Flynn's meeting when Obama signed new sanctions on Russia during the transition period. Now, I dont care if the Trumpets were talking with the Russians about that, but why are they lying? The only logical conclusion I can see is they knew the Russians helped Trump, but they may not have known how. It aint the crime, its the cover up. We got a bunch of foreigners affecting our elections, I'm sure the nominees they support know they're being helped.

It's obvious. They lied because they noticed the "russia collusion" angle was the political weapon being deployed against their administration, and didn't want to give it any more fuel. But because they lacked the experience to know it was a trap, they created the sole facts that could be actioned in this so-called investigation.

It will get to the point where it becomes obvious that there was no crime to start with, and there would have been no crime of "lying to the FBI" if there had been no politically-motivated investigation. The US is in the business of influencing elections in other countries, not of having its own influenced. Too much local money, too many interests for foreigners to have any noticeable impact even if they tried. Those foreigners stick to attempting to bribe the elected politicians after the election, and hoping they are good enough crooks to stay bought once paid.

 

[metalhead]

It's obvious. They lied because they noticed the "russia collusion" angle was the political weapon being deployed against their administration, and didn't want to give it any more fuel. But because they lacked the experience to know it was a trap, they created the sole facts that could be actioned in this so-called investigation.

The president's son has already published evidence that he took a meeting with Russians thinking they had damaging information about Hillary Clinton to share. The president's son-in-law and now top advisor, along with his now-indicted campaign chairman also attended that meeting. We already know they were trying to work with Russia, so the idea that there was no collusion has already been proven false.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The president's son has already published evidence that he took a meeting with Russians thinking they had damaging information about Hillary Clinton to share. The president's son-in-law and now top advisor, along with his now-indicted campaign chairman also attended that meeting. We already know they were trying to work with Russia, so the idea that there was no collusion has already been proven false.

Unless you subscribe to alternative facts.

 

[Berzerker]

Rachel Maddow's talking about a new book called "Collusion" that delves into Deutsche Bank's monstrous loans to Trump and their laundering of money stolen from Russians (among others).
I was skeptical of this amounting to much more than a fishing expedition, but now I'm hoping Mueller does go after these people - at least on this end. What a cesspool...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well allegedly he has subpoena'd Deutsche Bank's transactions with Trump so there's that.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm surprised it took him this long to go after the Deutsche Bank connection, given it has been known from literally day 1 Deutsche Bank's property/American branch was riddled with shady Russians, seriously reckless business practices, money laundering, and Trump.
I mean, Deutsche Bank was literally fined $630 million this year for engaging in money laundering and are currently over $10 billion in fines over the last year or two for assorted fraud and deception. Bloomberg did some excellent reporting on the Deutsche Bank link a while ago, and my original theory with Mueller would be that he would go after the Deutsche Bank angle because of how many white collar crime, money laundering, and fraud people he was bringing on.
(Though my personal theory is that he won't find anything explicitly implicating Trump -an innocence through ignorance defense- he will find enough to make the cesspit that Trump crawled from light up like a Christmas tree in April.)

 

[innonimatu]

The president's son has already published evidence that he took a meeting with Russians thinking they had damaging information about Hillary Clinton to share. The president's son-in-law and now top advisor, along with his now-indicted campaign chairman also attended that meeting. We already know they were trying to work with Russia, so the idea that there was no collusion has already been proven false.

Oh, they talked with a Russian, collusion! In the meanwhile the other candidate buys a "dossier" from an allegedly british former agent in order to thrown some dirt at Trump. Why do you not call "collusion!" wuth the UK, and for the investigation of that the GCHQ, and what the american state agencies under Obama did on behalf of Hillary's campaign? It is the exact symmetric of the trump campaign move, with the differences that Hillary's was more successful, and had the complicity of more people inside the US.

You are partisan, everyone gets that. And that is your problem - everyone gets it. There was real opposition your pet party could do to Trump. But because its constituency is the same as Trump's, the wealthy, they prefer to make politics on forged scandals that do not threated the position of that constituency. You're even helping him serve them by providing the distractions.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Oh, they talked with a Russian, collusion! In the meanwhile the other candidate buys a "dossier" from an allegedly british former agent in order to thrown some dirt at Trump. Why do you not call "collusion!" wuth the UK, and for the investigation of that the GCHQ, and what the american state agencies under Obama did on behalf of Hillary's campaign? It is the exact symmetric of the trump campaign move, with the differences that Hillary's was more successful, and had the complicity of more people inside the US.

You are partisan, everyone gets that. And that is your problem - everyone gets it. There was real opposition your pet party could do to Trump. But because its constituency is the same as Trump's, the wealthy, they prefer to make politics on forged scandals that do not threated the position of that constituency. You're even helping him serve them by providing the distractions.

Because colluding with an Ally such as the UK is different to colluding with Russian whom is currently a Enemy
Because collecting damaging information (which was not used during the election and Clinton lost the election) is the same as calling on another country to intervene via HACKING into your opponents email and HACKING into the election system
Iam sure it is " exact symmetric "

Give me a break

 

[Berzerker]

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/5/16735480/michael-flynn-plea-preet-bharara

he aint so sure Flynn's spilling the beans