Ed Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday

[a_unique_person]

No, God forbid we take him at his word.

What is it with people? Hillary deletes emails as we all do and the world screams corruption. Trump on the other hand goes around asking everyone from Jeff Sessions to Rod Rosenstein, Comey and members of the intelligence committee to back off and somehow this isn't obstruction? He FIRED Comey because of the Russia investigation.

I don't give a crap what Trump says today and no one else should either.

Trump has turned everyone's critical thinking skills to mush.

They were already mush. That's why he's been doing so well.

 

[Upchurch]

No, God forbid we take him at his word.

What is it with people? Hillary deletes emails as we all do and the world screams corruption. Trump on the other hand goes around asking everyone from Jeff Sessions to Rod Rosenstein, Comey and members of the intelligence committee to back off and somehow this isn't obstruction? He FIRED Comey because of the Russia investigation.

I don't give a crap what Trump says today and no one else should either.

Trump has turned everyone's critical thinking skills to mush.

Don't forget the more pedestrian corruption like nepotism and cronyism.

 

[davefoc]

All the other cash flowed in afterwards.

This fits in with davefoc's theory that Cohen's access scam was abetted by Trump in return for Cohen paying the hush money.

It seems to have been only well after the fact that Trump reimburses Cohen directly, which davefoc theorizes was at the the behest of Trump's lawyers who uncovered the scheme and warned Trump that he was in serious jeopardy if it could be proven that he was part of Cohen's pay for access scam and Trump's lawyers thought paying Cohen directly would help cover that up.

I like davefoc. He seems to be a bright guy, but I don't know, this theory seems a little out there. But maybe. At this point it seems like evidence one way or the other on this is or will be in the hands of Mueller and within a few months it should be knowable whether there is anything to davefoc's theory.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump is now again denying firing Comey over Russia.

What is it with is moron?

He said that is EXACTLY why he fired Comey at the time on National television. I remember at the time thinking Trump is a world class idiot because that was tantamount to confessing to obstruction.

CNN and MSNBC are playing the "this Rusher thing" clip over and over. CNN has a Trump apologist trying to say it means something else. One of the panel snickered. Trump apologist tries to invoke mens rea as the reason to excuse anything Trump says.

 

[davefoc]

As usual, he speaks so incoherently that different interpretations are consistent.

He could have been saying that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, but he also could have been saying that because the investigation was nonsense, he felt he could fire Comey despite the investigation.

Clearly, Russia was on his mind at the time of the firing, but I don't think his comments are quite the smoking gun that you and the media take them to be.

Having said all that, we're then left to try to put his words in context along side his actions.

so yea, he fired Comey because of Russia.

If you listen to the whole exchange and not just that clip, you're interpretation becomes stretched beyond credulity.

I think this discussion is going down different tracks:
1. Did Trump fire Comey to stop the Russian investigation and to protect himself and his cronies?
2. Is the evidence so strong for this that it can be used against Trump?
3. If Trump fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation is that by itself enough to drive a successful impeachment?

The answer to question 1 is simply yes. There is no other plausible alternative answer. Trump is one of the most dishonest individual to achieve national fame. To the degree possible with things like this it is knowable that Trump lied about his meeting with Comey.

The answer to question 2. is more difficult. The Republican congress and Fox News have circled the wagons. Obfuscation and lying are considered perfectly legitimate tactics and the reality is that right now that seems to be working. Truth doesn't matter much under these circumstances.

The answer to question 3. is technical and equivocal enough that a partisan congress will cling to it if all else fails to protect Trump.

I still think Trump will not serve out his term but I just don't think an obstruction of justice charge against him over the Comey firing will be sufficient or even a main driver behind this.

 

[Stacko]

More evidence of corrupt intent for making an obstruction of justice charge.

• Trump told Sessions he’d be a “hero” to conservatives if he did the “right thing” and took back control over the Russia investigation, according to two sources with knowledge of their conversations.
  
• Trump also told Sessions he’d be a hero if he investigated Hillary Clinton, according to one of the sources.

Trump also repeated the “hero” line separately to aides and privately mused about whether it would be possible to limit the scope of the Mueller investigation to avoid his business affairs.

 

[dudalb]

Why is Hillary’s charity given a pass on accepting donations from the very nations that accessd the governmental department she was the head of? The Obama administration recognized the conflicts of interest. Simply having Hillary sign a document was all it took to negate their concerns. The stated goal of the Clinton Foundation includes “establishing partnerships with businesses, individuals and governments..” Quid pro quo is illegal, and yet the appearance of this happening many many times was evident. There are some documented cases where the state departments actions were favorable for her donors. There were financial transactions from anonymous sources. There are emails discussing the desire to arrange a meeting between donors and Hillary.

Why weren’t theses behaviors of the Clinton Foundation and anybody associated with it investigated with as much speculation, vigor and resources as the Trump campgain? It doesn’t take much imagination to suspect that it’s because the head of the DOJ was ordered by then president Obama not to investigate the person he appointed to the state department. Private investigations don’t have access to nearly as much information as the Fed or a special prosecutor has access to.

With The limited information available to me, Hillary Clinton colluded with not only Russia, but many other nations as well.

Irrespective of guilt, Lawyers will invoke discovery, subpoenas, etc so that a legal defense can be organized. Don’t you agree that’s the prudent action you’d take if you were charged with a crime? If it isn’t, please explain what action you would take.

It's pathetic that the only defense the Trump supporters have is trying to change the subject.....

 

[phiwum]

No, God forbid we take him at his word.

What is it with people? Hillary deletes emails as we all do and the world screams corruption. Trump on the other hand goes around asking everyone from Jeff Sessions to Rod Rosenstein, Comey and members of the intelligence committee to back off and somehow this isn't obstruction? He FIRED Comey because of the Russia investigation.

I don't give a crap what Trump says today and no one else should either.

Trump has turned everyone's critical thinking skills to mush.

Read the incoherent quote from Trump. He does say he was thinking about Russia when he fired Comey, but he does not say that is why he fired Comey.

I'm not defending Trump, but I don't think that interview is as unambiguous as conventional wisdom maintains. And, of course, my point has nothing to do with other evidence of obstruction of justice. I don't understand the law well at all, but it's obvious that Trump has tried to interfere with various investigations and I think that counts as obstruction.

 

[Stacko]

Read the incoherent quote from Trump. He does say he was thinking about Russia when he fired Comey, but he does not say that is why he fired Comey.

I'm not defending Trump, but I don't think that interview is as unambiguous as conventional wisdom maintains. And, of course, my point has nothing to do with other evidence of obstruction of justice. I don't understand the law well at all, but it's obvious that Trump has tried to interfere with various investigations and I think that counts as obstruction.

Why mention the Russia investigation at all when discussing your reasons for firing Comey if it had nothing to do with it? I'm betting if you asked an unprepared Trump why he fired Comey he wouldn't mention a single thing that was outlined in the memo from Rosenstein but he would mention the Russia investigation.

 

[phiwum]

Why mention the Russia investigation at all when discussing your reasons for firing Comey if it had nothing to do with it? I'm betting if you asked an unprepared Trump why he fired Comey he wouldn't mention a single thing that was outlined in the memo from Rosenstein but he would mention the Russia investigation.

What he said is very suggestive that Russia is why he fired Comey, but I don't regard it as conclusive. That's all I'm saying.

Like I said earlier, I think it's totally plausible he's guilty of obstruction, but my understanding of that legal term is pretty meager.

 

[The Don]

What he said is very suggestive that Russia is why he fired Comey, but I don't regard it as conclusive. That's all I'm saying.

Like I said earlier, I think it's totally plausible he's guilty of obstruction, but my understanding of that legal term is pretty meager.

President Trump's rambling, word salad stream of consciousness when he's not reading from the teleprompter means that he never [G&S]What never ? Hardly ever[/G&S] makes conclusive statements, they always seem to be qualified and/or contradicted later on.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A Watergate prosecutor has said that Giulliani has admitted Trump obstructed justice

You know, I'm constantly astonished at the media's willingness to spin things, and the amount of liberties they take with accuracy. You'd think I'd get used to it... but now, I'm still taken aback by crappy reporting on a regular basis.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What he said is very suggestive that Russia is why he fired Comey, but I don't regard it as conclusive. That's all I'm saying.

Like I said earlier, I think it's totally plausible he's guilty of obstruction, but my understanding of that legal term is pretty meager.

That particular quote is one I've always had problems with. I can't find the exact quote, but he was more or less asked if he had considered the Russia investigation when he was deciding to fire Comey... and he answer that yes, the Russia investigation was on his mind. That has been repeatedly cast as him admitting that he fired Comey in an effort to thwart that investigation... but that's not even remotely the only interpretation of that exchange. Sure, it's a possible interpretation - plausible even. But on the other hand, I don't think there's any way that anyone could be considering firing Comey in that sort of a situation and NOT spend some time thinking about how the Russia investigation plays into the situation, how it's going to look if Comey is fired, what the impact is going to be... hell, even "who will they pick to continue the investigation?". There's no way in that scenario that the Russia investigation does not get considered and be part of the process in deciding to fire Comey. But there are a myriad different scenarios where that consideration does NOT imply that Comey was fired in order to thwart the investigation.

That particular quote has always been 99% spin and shine, and only 1% actual reporting.

 

[phiwum]

That particular quote is one I've always had problems with. I can't find the exact quote, but he was more or less asked if he had considered the Russia investigation when he was deciding to fire Comey... and he answer that yes, the Russia investigation was on his mind. That has been repeatedly cast as him admitting that he fired Comey in an effort to thwart that investigation... but that's not even remotely the only interpretation of that exchange. Sure, it's a possible interpretation - plausible even. But on the other hand, I don't think there's any way that anyone could be considering firing Comey in that sort of a situation and NOT spend some time thinking about how the Russia investigation plays into the situation, how it's going to look if Comey is fired, what the impact is going to be... hell, even "who will they pick to continue the investigation?". There's no way in that scenario that the Russia investigation does not get considered and be part of the process in deciding to fire Comey. But there are a myriad different scenarios where that consideration does NOT imply that Comey was fired in order to thwart the investigation.

That particular quote has always been 99% spin and shine, and only 1% actual reporting.

See https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...t_trumps_full_interview_with_lester_holt.html.

Holt did not ask about Russia regarding Comey's firing. I believe you are mistaken here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

See https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...t_trumps_full_interview_with_lester_holt.html.

Holt did not ask about Russia regarding Comey's firing. I believe you are mistaken here.

Seems I am.

 

[phiwum]

President Trump's rambling, word salad stream of consciousness when he's not reading from the teleprompter means that he never [G&S]What never ? Hardly ever[/G&S] makes conclusive statements, they always seem to be qualified and/or contradicted later on.

Yes, but even when reading prepared statements, he's likely to contradict himself. He cancelled the summit and immediately sought to get it back on track.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What he said is very suggestive that Russia is why he fired Comey, but I don't regard it as conclusive. That's all I'm saying.

Like I said earlier, I think it's totally plausible he's guilty of obstruction, but my understanding of that legal term is pretty meager.

If you are using 'meeting the legal standard' as the definition of "why he fired Comey" then fine.

But if you are simply considering why did the guy fire Comey, if you don't believe conclusively, 'of course obstructing the investigation is why he fired Comey', then you're still trying to kick Lucy's football despite how many times she keeps pulling it away.

 

[The_Animus]

The thread title said arrests are coming on Monday, what year exactly?

I see you're having trouble with reading comprehension. This site has some good tips that might help.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-to-improve-reading-comprehension

 

[plague311]

You know, I'm constantly astonished at the media's willingness to spin things, and the amount of liberties they take with accuracy. You'd think I'd get used to it... but now, I'm still taken aback by crappy reporting on a regular basis.

Care to back that up and say which part is spin or just spit the standard "fake news" line you people seem so proud of?

I'm constantly astonished at Trump supporters willingness to spin things and the amount of liberties they take with accuracy. You'd think I'd get used to it... But now, I'm still taken aback by crappy excuses on a regular basis.

Please amaze me with your, "I'm not a Trump supporter I just insert_random_flawed_reasoning_here."

Watching Trump supporters deny this **** when staring at a massive pile of evidence is downright embarrassing. I'm almost embarrassed reading it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[phiwum]

Care to back that up and say which part is spin or just spit the standard "fake news" line you people seem so proud of?

I regularly disagree with Emily's Cat, but I don't recall her using the term "fake news". Let's not tar her with that, unless you have a post in mind.