Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

[logger]

The Papadapolous outreach to Russia is old news. See here:



The new news is that Papadopoulos was stupid enough to meet with the FBI without having a lawyer present, and he was stupid enough to lie about stuff that was fully documented in his emails. Although, giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that he didn't really lie but simply misremembered the timeline.

Anyway, I suspect that he pleaded guilty because Mueller promised him a very light sentence in return.

After reading the Statement of Offense, I'd say that it is more exculpatory for the Trump campaign than inculpatory. The campaign clearly didn't respond to Papdopoulos' eager-beaverness, and some higher-ups expressed wariness about dealing with Russia because of Logan Act and other concerns.

I'll note also that the Statement is dated Oct. 5, 2017. Mueller has had this in his back pocket for three weeks, and yet he releases it now (and foreshadows it on Friday) along with the long-awaited indictment of Manafort for completely unrelated financial crimes, as a way to deflect attention from the fact that the entire Russia investigation is predicated on a bogus document prepared by (and subsequently lied about by) the Clinton campaign.

In short, a nothing burger. On to the next leftist meltdown!

 

[Belz...]

 

[NoahFence]

The Papadapolous outreach to Russia is old news. See here:



The new news is that Papadopoulos was stupid enough to meet with the FBI without having a lawyer present, and he was stupid enough to lie about stuff that was fully documented in his emails. Although, giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that he didn't really lie but simply misremembered the timeline.

Anyway, I suspect that he pleaded guilty because Mueller promised him a very light sentence in return.

After reading the Statement of Offense, I'd say that it is more exculpatory for the Trump campaign than inculpatory. The campaign clearly didn't respond to Papdopoulos' eager-beaverness, and some higher-ups expressed wariness about dealing with Russia because of Logan Act and other concerns.

I'll note also that the Statement is dated Oct. 5, 2017. Mueller has had this in his back pocket for three weeks, and yet he releases it now (and foreshadows it on Friday) along with the long-awaited indictment of Manafort for completely unrelated financial crimes, as a way to deflect attention from the fact that the entire Russia investigation is predicated on a bogus document prepared by (and subsequently lied about by) the Clinton campaign.

So your complaint is that Meuller made us all wait?

Why isn't that a knock on Trump? He does that **** all the time. Payback's a bitch, misser president, isn't it?

 

[Spindrift]

In short, a nothing burger. On to the next leftist meltdown!

Unfortunately this nothing burger will have staying power so you can't deflect to something else.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Sarah does a bad reading of a disingenuous bar tab story to push the tax cuts.

Have to wait to unpack the numbers but it reminds me of the trick story about the three men renting rooms for $100 total... get refund of xxx... where'd the missing dollar go? That one.

She left out the bank balances of the ten people (snarkily making them reporters... concerned of course with... fairness), and how the advantages of current law and tax code enabled those personal fortunes.

Ballpark... paying an extra 10 million out of 50 million is a damn sight less onerous than paying an extra thousand out of fifty. It may hurt the ego more, but it's the difference between having a third vacation home or getting the second yacht, and keeping the car running so you can get to work.

Rampant socialism is bad (IMO), but so is Gordon Gecko.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Manafort for completely unrelated financial crimes, as a way to deflect attention from the fact that the entire Russia investigation is predicated on a bogus document prepared by (and subsequently lied about by) the Clinton campaign.

Which is all permitted

 

[dudalb]

Unfortunately this nothing burger will have staying power so you can't deflect to something else.

If he had been around in 1972, logger would have called the Watergate break in a nothing burger.

 

[dudalb]

Mueller is handling this the same way he would have handled going after a Mafia family:Indict the lower downs first, and get them to rat on the higher ups. Standrad SOP.

 

[Trebuchet]

If he had been around in 1972, logger would have called the Watergate break in a nothing burger burglar.

FTFY

 

[KatieG]

Seen earlier this morning:

I hope Mueller goes to Jared

 

[CapelDodger]

If he had been around in 1972, logger would have called the Watergate break in a nothing burger.

If he'd been around in 1936 he'd have believed FDR got his orders from Moscow.

 

[sunmaster14]

Are you seriously suggesting that Mueller is trying to deflect attention away from something like that? What would be his motive? He's under no obligation to reach a specific conclusion on the matter.

Absolutely. I am at least 80% confident that Mueller brought this out now to divert from the fact that his investigation is predicted on a lie. Also, I do not believe Mueller is objective at all. He is extremely tight with Comey, was implicated in shenanigans by the Clintons when he was FBI director (like almost everybody who comes into contact with those twin tornadoes of personal destruction), and he no doubt hates Trump (as almost any establishment bureaucrat would).

The timing of the release of the indictments and the guilty plea was exquisite. By stoking speculation on Friday, it dominated the weekend news, which otherwise would have been devoted to the repercussions of the fraudulent dossier which was nothing more than campaign agitprop.

 

[sunmaster14]

Which is all permitted

Who cares if it is permitted? If true, it would tell us that Mueller is unethical, and he has now become another out-of-control special prosecutor, just as all others before him became.

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely. I am at least 80% confident that Mueller brought this out now to divert from the fact that his investigation is predicted on a lie.

Then your own partisan bias is preventing you from having a reasoned opinion or discussion on the topic, and there's no point in engaging with you on this subject.

 

[sunmaster14]

Then your own partisan bias is preventing you from having a reasoned opinion or discussion on the topic, and there's no point in engaging with you on this subject.

Such an insightful analysis and rebuttal. That's why I come to this forum - to read such elegant and thoughtful contributions.

 

[Segnosaur]

Things just got a little bit worse for Trump:

From: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/30/trump-transgender-troops-ban-military-judge
A United States district judge on Monday blocked Donald Trump from enforcing a ban on transgender people serving in the military.

So the ban, which many generals, moderate republicans, and even some in Trump's cabinet (Mattis) gets stopped by the courts.

 

[Trebuchet]

Then your own partisan bias is preventing you from having a reasoned opinion or discussion on the topic, and there's no point in engaging with you on this subject.

And yet you continue to do so!

 

[Oystein]

Trump is president,and Sessions is his attorney general. Clinton wasn't president, and Loretta Lynch wasn't his attorney general, at the time. Also, Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation.

I disagree with most of your opinions here, but I agree that it is ridiculous to consider it inappropriate or even illegal for the President to be talking to a member of his Cabinet.

However, a point could be made that either of these two Gentlemen should resign ASAP.

 

[Oystein]

Such an insightful analysis and rebuttal. That's why I come to this forum - to read such elegant and thoughtful contributions.

About as insightful as your "I am at least 80% confident" ploy, which looks so well-considered, almost mathematical in its exactness, and yet is as convincing and relevant as indescript stuff pulled out of dark holes.

 

[sunmaster14]

About as insightful as your "I am at least 80% confident" ploy, which looks so well-considered, almost mathematical in its exactness, and yet is as convincing and relevant as indescript stuff pulled out of dark holes.

Well, I guess in that same sense, we can call your post a rebuttal.