Official Special Investigation Into Trump Thread

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 . . . 23 NEXT
 

bastardofmelbourne:
That is, they figured they'd rather go and make history

Correctamundo. When you receive an offer from the former FBI director to participate in a historic investigation that will put your name in history books as one of the heroes who saved the Republic, you don't exactly refuse it.

It's gonna be so lit when they start indicting more Americans.

Mueller just hired even more prosecutors. Here's a rhetorical question for y'all - what reason would someone have to hire more prosecutors?

Adam Jensen:
Mueller just hired even more prosecutors. Here's a rhetorical question for y'all - what reason would someone have to hire more prosecutors?

To prosecute more!

Adam Jensen:
Mueller just hired even more prosecutors. Here's a rhetorical question for y'all - what reason would someone have to hire more prosecutors?

Hand out public funds for friends and cronies.

Seanchaidh:

Adam Jensen:
Mueller just hired even more prosecutors. Here's a rhetorical question for y'all - what reason would someone have to hire more prosecutors?

Hand out public funds for friends and cronies.

You do realize these prosecutors are not in need of public funds and usually take a pay cut not increase to take these sort of cases don't you? They look for the best and the best Lawyers only take these cases due to them believing they are providing a necessary service. They can be paid MORE, not less by choosing to dedicate their efforts elsewhere. Those that are willing to take on such a burden understand their very lives will be at risk for doing so.

It is actually extremely dangerous to themselves and their family to agree to even do this. They lose money and endanger themselves and everyone they ever cared about and their only benefit is that " they knew they did the right thing". sounds like a bunch of "Cronies" would take that job eh?

Seanchaidh:

Adam Jensen:
Mueller just hired even more prosecutors. Here's a rhetorical question for y'all - what reason would someone have to hire more prosecutors?

Hand out public funds for friends and cronies.

Man, be serious. These guys were earning way more in private practice than they are working for Mueller.

PsychedelicDiamond:
To prosecute more!

That was a hell of a brainteaser, though. Amirite?

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:

Adam Jensen:
Mueller just hired even more prosecutors. Here's a rhetorical question for y'all - what reason would someone have to hire more prosecutors?

Hand out public funds for friends and cronies.

Man, be serious. These guys were earning way more in private practice than they are working for Mueller.

continues receiving money as an equity partner while working on government case -> receives public funds -> profit

divests from partnership -> invests in something else -> receives public funds -> profit

PsychedelicDiamond:

Adam Jensen:
Mueller just hired even more prosecutors. Here's a rhetorical question for y'all - what reason would someone have to hire more prosecutors?

To prosecute more!

It may not matter. The new supreme court nominee...

In 2009 - a decade after leading the investigation against Mr Clinton - Mr Kavanaugh wrote that charging a sitting president would "cripple" the federal government and "would ill-serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis".

"Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job is, I believe it vital that the president be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible," he wrote.

"The country wants the president to be 'one of us' who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the president should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office."

In other words, Mr Kavanaugh is now of the view that Mr Trump should not need to answer any charges against him until his presidential term is over.

Kwak:
It may not matter. The new supreme court nominee...

Would recuse himself. If he doesn't Roberts would make him. Gorsuch as well. Roberts cares more about his legacy than protecting anyone, Trump included. But I don't think that this nominee is as bad as Gorsuch. I also don't think that he'd protect Trump from the types of crimes that he's committed. When he wrote that opinion back in 2009 he probably never thought that he'd see a POTUS who's done things that Trump has done. And he basically thinks that POTUS SHOULDN'T be indicted, not that he CAN'T be. That's a very important distinction.

And when the things that Trump has done are revealed to the public, only a criminal who's complicit in Trump's crimes will be willing to protect him in any way, shape or form. Everyone else will be falling over themselves to renounce him. You people have no fuckin' idea what this guy has done. He doesn't just deserve impeachment, he deserves the chair. And if you could kill a guy several times over, he'd deserve that as well.

Any possibility Republicans will be held accountable for doing everything they can to derail an investigation into possible treason?

Conservative lawmakers in the House are preparing to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Politico reported Friday.

Sources told the publication that conservatives have been preparing to have Rosenstein impeached for weeks over allegations that he's held up their investigation into FBI agents who some lawmakers say are biased against President Trump.

House Freedom Caucus leaders Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) are leading the effort, and the impeachment document could be filed as soon as Monday, according to Politico.

Ben Williamson, a spokesman for Meadows, declined to rule out if it would be filed next week, Politico reported.

The news comes the same day that Rosenstein announced charges against 12 Russian intelligence officials for allegedly hacking the Democratic National Committee.

Rosenstein has long been a target for Republicans who are frustrated over special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into election meddling by Russia and possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign. He is overseeing the probe after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, and some argue that he's the only person with the legal authority to fire Mueller.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/396974-conservatives-moving-to-impeach-rosenstein-soon-report

Kwak:
Any possibility Republicans will be held accountable for doing everything they can to derail an investigation into possible treason?

I'd say an extremely high probability.

And they don't have the votes to impeach Rosenstein. It will only make them look more guilty. Especially after agent Strzok ripped them a new one during the public hearing and revealed their hypocrisy for the whole world to see.

I wonder if the investigation goes more smoothly when Trump is away on trips abroad, or if not having him around means his staff can focus more on covering his skeletons up since they've not got to worry about him launching nukes or invading Venezuela or whatever

I still don't think Trump colluded with Russia, he might've been an unwilling pawn, but I doubt he actually met and planned with Putin to take down Hillary Clinton.

Some minor but salient updates to this thread, regarding the indictment released on Friday:

- The indictment alleges that in August 2016, an unnamed US congressional candidate requested and received stolen documents from the hacker "Guccifer 2.0," an online identity who has been demonstrated - on balance of probabilities - to be a handle used by Russian intelligence. There's no indication that the candidate was aware that he was talking to Russian intelligence operatives at the time.

- The indictment alleges that the GRU employed an unnamed outside organisation to help disseminate the documents. Though the organisation is not named, the details indicate it to be Wikileaks. Julian Assange has repeatedly insisted that his source for the documents was not the Russian state.

- On July 27 2016, Donald Trump publicly called on Russia to find and release emails regarding Hillary Clinton's tenure at the State Department. The indictment alleges that on July 27 2016, Russian hackers attempted to breach email accounts used by Clinton's personal office and about seventy-six email addresses used by the Clinton campaign.

That last one is a doozy. It means Mueller has forensic evidence of Russian intelligence trying to break into Clinton's personal email account just hours after Trump...asked Russian intelligence to break into Clinton's personal email account.

And, y'know, Trump is now headed to a one-on-one meeting with Putin with no-one else in the room but their translators. If I was the US translator, I'd be checking my tea for polonium from now until...the rest of my life.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:

Hand out public funds for friends and cronies.

Man, be serious. These guys were earning way more in private practice than they are working for Mueller.

continues receiving money as an equity partner while working on government case -> receives public funds -> profit

divests from partnership -> invests in something else -> receives public funds -> profit

Out of curiosity, is the indictment of 12 Russian Federal Intelligence officers for the hacks into the DNC enough to convince you that there might be something to this investigation? What, exactly, would be the "red line" that you'll admit the investigation by the Special Counsel is necessary? How many Russian officials and people from Trump's personal life, campaign, and administration need to be indicted by the Justice Department before you'll admit that, just maybe, you made a mistake to come out against the investigation? Your personal politics and the Special Counsel are not at odds, mate. The latter being a good thing doesn't reflect at all on your policy positions; stop associating the two in your head as having an inversely proportional relationship.

Like, we get it, you HATE Hillary. However, Hillary can still be both an awful person, candidate, and policy-maker while Trump did directly benefit from Russian interference in the election. How much longer are you going to stick your head in the sand over nothing but spite against her?

Though it is becoming a rather interesting pattern where all of the political tactics you seem to favor benefit conservatives and the hard right of the political spectrum at the expense of anyone between the center and yourself on the left. It's almost like you'd rather have the exact opposite of what you want instead of only some of what you want just to prove a point. You're not getting everything you want, so let's just set it all on fire.

Avnger:

Though it is becoming a rather interesting pattern where all of the political tactics you seem to favor benefit conservatives and the hard right of the political spectrum at the expense of anyone between the center and yourself on the left. It's almost like you'd rather have the exact opposite of what you want instead of only some of what you want just to prove a point. You're not getting everything you want, so let's just set it all on fire.

Feel free to go and have a good cry about whatever you imagine my agenda is.

bastardofmelbourne:
That last one is a doozy. It means Mueller has forensic evidence of Russian intelligence trying to break into Clinton's personal email account just hours after Trump...asked Russian intelligence to break into Clinton's personal email account.

What do you think the significance of Russians allegedly reacting to public information is?

Trump sides with Putin/Russia.

There are two sides. Those who realize Trump is guilty, and those who realize Trump is guilty but will lie through their teeth. There is no other side.

Saelune:
Trump sides with Putin/Russia.

There are two sides. Those who realize Trump is guilty, and those who realize Trump is guilty but will lie through their teeth. There is no other side.

And what about the side that is still waiting for Mueller to find any evidence of collusion before we actually condemn Trump for it?

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Trump sides with Putin/Russia.

There are two sides. Those who realize Trump is guilty, and those who realize Trump is guilty but will lie through their teeth. There is no other side.

And what about the side that is still waiting for Mueller to find any evidence of collusion before we actually condemn Trump for it?

Any? ANY? We are well beyond any. He already has had people arrested and indicted. Trump has done virtually everything he can to prove himself guilty.

And in this very video he takes Putin at his word, while continues to attack Clinton based on things she has been cleared of. It is unfair to think Clinton is guilty but give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

Clinton had her investigation against her and was cleared with no one getting in trouble. Not Trump.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Trump sides with Putin/Russia.

There are two sides. Those who realize Trump is guilty, and those who realize Trump is guilty but will lie through their teeth. There is no other side.

And what about the side that is still waiting for Mueller to find any evidence of collusion before we actually condemn Trump for it?

Any? ANY? We are well beyond any. He already has had people arrested and indicted. Trump has done virtually everything he can to prove himself guilty.

And in this very video he takes Putin at his word, while continues to attack Clinton based on things she has been cleared of. It is unfair to think Clinton is guilty but give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

Clinton had her investigation against her and was cleared with no one getting in trouble. Not Trump.

OK so why hasn't Trump appeared before a Grand Jury, why isn't the press blowing up with reports of Trump colluding with Russia? Why hasn't he pardoned himself yet if he got caught?

He's attacking Hillary Clinton because she is his favorite target, it riles up his base, even Fox News doesn't let Hillary go. Remember Donald loves to double down on conspiracy theories to distract from his shitty policies.

So taking Putin at his word equals Collusion? Yeah it doesn't work like that. Remember he just called Germany a puppet of Russia for trying to conduct an oil deal with Russia.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

And what about the side that is still waiting for Mueller to find any evidence of collusion before we actually condemn Trump for it?

Any? ANY? We are well beyond any. He already has had people arrested and indicted. Trump has done virtually everything he can to prove himself guilty.

And in this very video he takes Putin at his word, while continues to attack Clinton based on things she has been cleared of. It is unfair to think Clinton is guilty but give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

Clinton had her investigation against her and was cleared with no one getting in trouble. Not Trump.

OK so why hasn't Trump appeared before a Grand Jury, why isn't the press blowing up with reports of Trump colluding with Russia? Why hasn't he pardoned himself yet if he got caught?

He's attacking Hillary Clinton because she is his favorite target, it riles up his base, even Fox News doesn't let Hillary go. Remember Donald loves to double down on conspiracy theories to distract from his shitty policies.

So taking Putin at his word equals Collusion? Yeah it doesn't work like that. Remember he just called Germany a puppet of Russia for trying to conduct an oil deal with Russia.

I don't know. I think Mueller is taking too god damn long. Probably has to do with Trump being President though. If he wasn't, he would be done by now I am sure. He cant pardon himself until he is punished, and hopefully he cant pardon himself anymore then. The press is constantly talking about Trump colluding with Russia, what do you think that video was about?

He is attacking Clinton because he is a hypocrite (and a sexist, and a sore loser AND sore winner at the same time)

No, colluding with Russia equals collusion. But being friends with Putin, trusting Putin, taking Putins word over anyone elses, and vilifying Canada and Germany while siding with Russia, even blaming the US itself over Russia makes it obvious he did it.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Any? ANY? We are well beyond any. He already has had people arrested and indicted. Trump has done virtually everything he can to prove himself guilty.

And in this very video he takes Putin at his word, while continues to attack Clinton based on things she has been cleared of. It is unfair to think Clinton is guilty but give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

Clinton had her investigation against her and was cleared with no one getting in trouble. Not Trump.

OK so why hasn't Trump appeared before a Grand Jury, why isn't the press blowing up with reports of Trump colluding with Russia? Why hasn't he pardoned himself yet if he got caught?

He's attacking Hillary Clinton because she is his favorite target, it riles up his base, even Fox News doesn't let Hillary go. Remember Donald loves to double down on conspiracy theories to distract from his shitty policies.

So taking Putin at his word equals Collusion? Yeah it doesn't work like that. Remember he just called Germany a puppet of Russia for trying to conduct an oil deal with Russia.

I don't know. I think Mueller is taking too god damn long. Probably has to do with Trump being President though. If he wasn't, he would be done by now I am sure. He cant pardon himself until he is punished, and hopefully he cant pardon himself anymore then. The press is constantly talking about Trump colluding with Russia, what do you think that video was about?

He is attacking Clinton because he is a hypocrite (and a sexist, and a sore loser AND sore winner at the same time)

No, colluding with Russia equals collusion. But being friends with Putin, trusting Putin, taking Putins word over anyone elses, and vilifying Canada and Germany while siding with Russia, even blaming the US itself over Russia makes it obvious he did it.

Mueller is taking his time because these things don't end over night, the watergate investigation took a few years before anything substantive was found.

I won't disagree with you about Hillary.

Of course the press is talking about collusion, it's the only damn thing they know what to talk about, that and stormy daniels, and the kardashians(Joke).

Just cuz he is attacking our allies (Which is unusual) it doesn't mean that's evidence of collusion. It's Trump being a moron.

Seanchaidh:
What do you think the significance of Russians allegedly reacting to public information is?

Legally speaking, it would fill the "solicit" half of the "soliciting a crime" offence, and it does so in a very public and undeniable way.

It makes the exchange look less like Trump tossing out hypotheticals while Russians commit crimes independent of him, and more like two groups of conspirators telegraphing the details of an exchange in a way that doesn't involve directly communicating with each other. Like two spies taking out newspaper ads in code to negotiate the details of a dead drop; it looks innocuous - if inexplicable - by itself, but once you put the two ads together, you realise that these guys are talking to each other.

In this case, it comes less than two months after that Trump Tower meeting - that Trump Jr. 100% told his father about - and it involves Trump saying that if Russia gets its hands on Clinton's "30,000 emails that are missing" they will be "probably be rewarded mightily by our press." He's basically saying "release the dirt you were offering me six weeks ago [the semi-mythical 33,000 incriminating emails from Clinton's time at State], and I will reward you."

He's not doing it very subtly, either, which is to be expected from Donald J. Trump the Super-Spy, but which makes it really easy to impute an intent to solicit the commission of a crime once you have also demonstrate that a relevant crime occurred just hours after the solicitation.

bastardofmelbourne:
Legally speaking, it would fill the "solicit" half of the "soliciting a crime" offence, and it does so in a very public and undeniable way.

It makes the exchange look less like Trump tossing out hypotheticals while Russians commit crimes independent of him, and more like two groups of conspirators telegraphing the details of an exchange in a way that doesn't involve directly communicating with each other. Like two spies taking out newspaper ads in code to negotiate the details of a dead drop; it looks innocuous - if inexplicable - by itself, but once you put the two ads together, you realise that these guys are talking to each other.

It looks like one group of people reacting to some extremely public and hardly cryptic statements.

Seanchaidh:
It looks like one group of people reacting to some extremely public and hardly cryptic statements.

If I hold a press conference and very publicly state "I will pay ten thousand dollars to whomever is willing to murder my wife," and then hours later someone murders my wife, then that too is technically just some people reacting to some extremely public and hardly cryptic statements.

What I'm getting at is that if these events are ever examined before a court with a prosecutor alleging that Trump was soliciting a cybercrime from a foreign government's intelligence service, the prosecutor will allege that Trump's statement constituted the solicitation of a crime and that the subsequent and very suspiciously-timed criminal actions by the Russian intelligence services constituted the attempted fulfillment of that solicitation. It fills the required elements of a criminal offence, is what I'm saying. That's why it's important.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
It looks like one group of people reacting to some extremely public and hardly cryptic statements.

If I hold a press conference and very publicly state "I will pay ten thousand dollars to whomever is willing to murder my wife," and then hours later someone murders my wife, then that too is technically just some people reacting to some extremely public and hardly cryptic statements.

It's also literally the offering of money to do a crime.

bastardofmelbourne:
What I'm getting at is that if these events are ever examined before a court with a prosecutor alleging that Trump was soliciting a cybercrime from a foreign government's intelligence service, the prosecutor will allege that Trump's statement constituted the solicitation of a crime and that the subsequent and very suspiciously-timed criminal actions by the Russian intelligence services constituted the attempted fulfillment of that solicitation. It fills the required elements of a criminal offence, is what I'm saying. That's why it's important.

The crime of solicitation doesn't require anyone actually act on the command; if Trump saying what he did is illegal after this revelation, it should have been illegal before it as well. The actions of Russia aren't very much help in determining Trump's intent when making that statement, which seems to be the real sticking point here (as it was before).

Seanchaidh:
It's also literally the offering of money to do a crime.

Yes. It is. The point I'm getting at is that it's comparable to what Trump did. He said "Go find Clinton's emails, and I think you will be rewarded mightily (byourpress)."

It is not difficult to read that as the solicitation of a cyberattack. Unsurprisingly, that is how multiple news outlets read it at the time it was made.

Seanchaidh:
The crime of solicitation doesn't require anyone actually act on the command; if Trump saying what he did is illegal after this revelation, it should have been illegal before it as well. The actions of Russia aren't very much help in determining Trump's intent when making that statement, which seems to be the real sticking point here (as it was before).

What it does is alter the context of Trump's statement. If no Russian hacking had occurred, it would be difficult for a prosecutor to argue that Trump sincerely asked that Russian intelligence steal his opponent's emails. He would simply say that he was joking, because to ask such a thing absent any context is ridiculous; it would be like I said here "Hey, Russia! Hack Seanchaidh's emails for me!" Because the request seems preposterous absent other factors, it would be difficult to say I was sincerely soliciting a crime. This is the reason most solicitation offences do not get prosecuted absent serious evidence of an actual or planned criminal offence in relation to the solicitation.

But the combination of two facts - that Trump knew that the Russians were responsible for the DNC hacks and was in contact with them regarding this fact, and that the Russians immediately acted upon Trump's public request just hours after he made it - make that defense less tenable. It is much harder for Trump to pretend that he was "just joking" once it has been demonstrated that he was fully aware that Russia was actually responsible for the ongoing cyberattacks and that Russia was listening to his directions and acting accordingly.

bastardofmelbourne:
It is much harder for Trump to pretend that he was "just joking" once it has been demonstrated that he was fully aware that Russia was actually responsible for the ongoing cyberattacks and that Russia was listening to his directions and acting accordingly.

The timing or the fact that it occurred is not evidence of Trump's awareness of anything.

bastardofmelbourne:
It is not difficult to read that as the solicitation of a cyberattack. Unsurprisingly, that is how multiple news outlets read it at the time it was made.

Spoiler alert: he said it because he knew that hacking the DNC was the plan, and he's a narcissistic idiot who couldn't keep his mouth shut.

Adam Jensen:

bastardofmelbourne:
It is not difficult to read that as the solicitation of a cyberattack. Unsurprisingly, that is how multiple news outlets read it at the time it was made.

Spoiler alert: he said it because he knew that hacking the DNC was the plan, and he's a narcissistic idiot who couldn't keep his mouth shut.

I know a lot of you want to write off Jensen, but you all have to actually look at some of the things Trump does.

In a written response crafted... simply for him to follow and try to take some heat off... The man can't even do that. He says he trusts the agencies when they said it was Russia, and then the next breath says it could be anyone.

The man is ever very stupid, needs mental help, or needs to stick on Putin's message. There are no other avenues available.

One might say "well, what if he strongly believes...", Doesn't matter. He's in a world of shit. Most every political force is turning on him. He was made to see that what he did was wrong and why. This is the most talked about thing in the world. For a man where appearance is everything, one would think he would grasp damage control. And he simply did not.

So, either he's incapable of grasping the shitshow he creates, incapable of holding his mouth like someone pathological, or has someone or something he worries more in Putin than anyone else.

It's almost as if the man is terrified of Putin.

bastardofmelbourne:

But the combination of two facts - that Trump knew that the Russians were responsible for the DNC hacks and was in contact with them regarding this fact, and that the Russians immediately acted upon Trump's public request just hours after he made it - make that defense less tenable. It is much harder for Trump to pretend that he was "just joking" once it has been demonstrated that he was fully aware that Russia was actually responsible for the ongoing cyberattacks and that Russia was listening to his directions and acting accordingly.

Damn, the timing here is just off to prove anything...

Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html

It will come.

Doesn't Trump's 'correction' mean he says Russia DID hack the election and thus completely undermines his stance of no interference and no collusion? Doesn't that mean he basically admitted to it? I mean, Trump could literally shoot someone in Times Square and he would lose no voters, but still.

You know the guy messed up when even fox news is calling him out.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 . . . 23 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here