Mueller Investigation pt4

[Egg]

I lived through Watergate. It proved what a sleazy bastard Nixon was. But what we've learned about Trump and his administration makes Nixon pale in comparison. Trump didn't just sell out. He sold out to an authoritarian dictatorship and a major adversary of the United States. He did this for personal greed.

I am hopeful that enough comes out that even Republicans decide Trump should be impeached.

You have more hope than I do on this. As we've seen, some Republicans have not only drunk the Trump flavored Kool Aid, they've been embalmed with it.

I can see the House bringing impeachment charges, but I cannot see the Senate convicting with the required 2/3rds majority. At least not this Senate.

I think we'll get the answer by keeping an eye on right-wing media coverage. If we start getting to the point where the Republican leadership feel they're left with no choice, we'll start seeing the media messaging changing. This may happen pretty soon to give time to distance themselves and re-brand the party before 2020.

I'm pretty sure the favorable ratings are heavily propped up by favorable coverage and can be cut by at least half with a change of narrative (or by maybe just some honest reporting).

First signs maybe or just testing the water?

 

[Stacyhs]

I think we'll get the answer by keeping an eye on right-wing media coverage. If we start getting to the point where the Republican leadership feel they're left with no choice, we'll start seeing the media messaging changing. This may happen pretty soon to give time to distance themselves and re-brand the party before 2020.

I'm pretty sure the favorable ratings are heavily propped up by favorable coverage and can be cut by at least half with a change of narrative (or by maybe just some honest reporting).

First signs maybe or just testing the water?

I actually hope you are correct, but I don't see Carlson's interview as indicative of any change in the conservative media weather vane. I think the only way that will change is if Mueller's report shows absolute and serious criminal activity by Trump. Nothing as bland as the Stormy Daniels campaign finance crimes will do the trick. The conservatives will brush that off like dandruff. It needs to be Russian money laundering, collusion (conspiring), etc to get through their bias.

 

[smartcooky]

A couple of things that Trump is going to have difficulty in explaining..

1. Of course he claims the SCO investigation is a "witch hunt" run by "17 angry Democrats". However, the most damning evidence against him from these three sentencing recommendations came from the SDNY documents, in filings unrelated to the Russia investigation. Is he now going to claim there are another 200+ angry Democrat prosecutors in the SDNY offices?

2. These sentencing documents state that Cohen made these payments at the direction of Trump. Not only do they have Cohen's word, they have documentary evidence that what Cohen has told them is correct. If any of that documentary evidence turns out to be among the 100 or so recordings that we have yet to hear, then that is big, big trouble for Trump.

I actually hope you are correct, but I don't see Carlson's interview as indicative of any change in the conservative media weather vane. I think the only way that will change is if Mueller's report shows absolute and serious criminal activity by Trump. Nothing as bland as the Stormy Daniels campaign finance crimes will do the trick. The conservatives will brush that off like dandruff. It needs to be Russian money laundering, collusion (conspiring), etc to get through their bias.

Well, we still have no idea what's under those black bars! Redactions in a case like this are for a reason. Mueller...

a. does not want to tip his hand
b. does not want to give the targets any chance to get their stories straight
c. does not want to let targets know who his witnesses are.

 

[a_unique_person]

There are people making claims now. Their conclusions based on the evidence can be questioned.

Muellers filings are a good indication of what he will be pursuing or has already started prosecutions.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Just in case anybody thinks that holding the opinion that Trump is in a lot of trouble is partisan, this guy is a former Chief Assistant US Attorney, writes for the National Review and is a fellow of the National Review Institute, and is a contributor to Fox News: https://twitter.com/AndrewCMcCarthy/status/1071556788435251201

Rob Khuzami (along w/ Pat Fitzgerald) was my partner on Blind Sheikh case. As skillful a lawyer as I’ve been privileged to work with. Always issues when donation violations treated as felonies. But you can be sure the SDNY team is SDNY caliber. Meaning POTUS is in real peril.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1071551734139510784

Comey makes a point virtually everyone gets wrong: there was an investigation into RU, and an investigation into Trump's folks.

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Comey-interview-12-7-18_Redacted.pdf …

https://twitter.com/vermontgmg/status/1071556551964585985

This is a really important point by @emptywheel, often overlooked by GOP critics. The original FBI Russia probe was meant to *PROTECT* the Trump campaign, to protect against Russians trying to penetrate it. The horror arrived when the FBI realized Trump wanted the help.

Quote embedded in first tweet.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1071472267643797505

Speaking about the latest Mueller filings, Trump told reporters moments ago that he's "very happy with what we've been reading" ... then in the next breath, he admitted he has *not* actually read any of them, but "based on what everyone is telling me, there's no collusion."

And this is just after Rex Tillerson said that Trump didn't like to read.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Muellers filings are a good indication of what he will be pursuing or has already started prosecutions.

When he makes a claim, he can present all his evidence and then I will listen. But if he holds a single piece back, I will reject it because that isn't the path to knowledge.

 

[JoeMorgue]

When he makes a claim, he can present all his evidence and then I will listen. But if he holds a single piece back, I will reject it because that isn't the oath to knowledge.

Well thank God you aren't in charge of deciding anything important than.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

When he makes a claim, he can present all his evidence and then I will listen. But if he holds a single piece back, I will reject it because that isn't the oath to knowledge.

That is ... weird?
You are going to reject Mueller's finding unless he releases publicly the millions of pages of information he gathered,together all the tapes?

When has any investigator ever done this?

 

[BobTheCoward]

That is ... weird?
You are going to reject Mueller's finding unless he releases publicly the millions of pages of information he gathered,together all the tapes?

When has any investigator ever done this?

And I reject nearly all claims in the world by investigators. We have a sense of the best methods of advancing knowledge (scientific method). I try to adhere to that

 

[Tero]

Hill writes Comey article based on everything we knew already
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ier-not-verified-before-or-after-fisa-warrant
even though most of the Steele document (all but pee pee tapes) is now fact
DB finds content in before election 4 people who knew most
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-is-telling-us-hes-got-trump-on-collusion?ref=scroll

The term collusion seems to be a sort of "planning a conspiracy" or " get me some dirt but don't tell me how" state. The legal term is conspiracy.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

And I reject nearly all claims in the world by investigators. We have a sense of the best methods of advancing knowledge (scientific method). I try to adhere to that

Given that, unlike Mueller, I'm no expert investigator with decades of law enforcement experience, and furthermore, I am probably more biased than him against Trump, I would consider his conclusions on the matter more reliable than anything I might discover, given the same trove of information.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Given that, unlike Mueller, I'm no expert investigator with decades of law enforcement experience, and furthermore, I am probably more biased than him against Trump, I would consider his conclusions on the matter more reliable than anything I might discover, given the same trove of information.

It says something that you think it is about finding something different. I'm not a peer. But it must all be presented for peer review. Peer review is public.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It says something that you think it is about finding something different. I'm not a peer. But it must all be presented for peer review. Peer review is public.

yeah, but no.
Criminal investigations don't lend themselves to public peer review, since there are parts of many investigations that have to remain confidential to protect methods, sources etc.

 

[BobTheCoward]

yeah, but no.
Criminal investigations don't lend themselves to public peer review, since there are parts of many investigations that have to remain confidential to protect methods, sources etc.

I agree. That is why I almost universally reject the claims of the investigators.

ETA: and just to speed this up, I also almost universally reject the claims of the people being investigated.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Hill writes Comey article based on everything we knew already
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ier-not-verified-before-or-after-fisa-warrant

What a load of bollocks. Way too much to bother actually going in to.

i was surprised at The Hill for publishing it, so I did a little research on the author. He has a reputation for omitting salient facts and bending the truth and directing reporters working under him to bend the truth to fit a predetermined narrative, "facts be damned". Turns out staffers at The Hill have complained to management about Solomon's partisan bias, dishonesty, and close relationship to Trump adviser Sean Hannity.

So, yeah, a load of old bollocks, and unsurprisingly so.

 

[varwoche]

i was surprised at The Hill for publishing it, so I did a little research on the author. He has a reputation for omitting salient facts and bending the truth and directing reporters working under him to bend the truth to fit a predetermined narrative, "facts be damned". Turns out staffers at The Hill have complained to management about Solomon's partisan bias, dishonesty, and close relationship to Trump adviser Sean Hannity.

So, yeah, a load of old bollocks, and unsurprisingly so.

Interesting to read the goings-on at Moonie Press, aka the WA Times. Thanks.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump tweets

On 245 occasions, former FBI Director James Comey told House investigators he didn’t know, didn’t recall, or couldn’t remember things when asked. Opened investigations on 4 Americans (not 2) - didn’t know who signed off and didn’t know Christopher Steele. All lies!

Leakin’ James Comey must have set a record for who lied the most to Congress in one day. His Friday testimony was so untruthful! This whole deal is a Rigged Fraud headed up by dishonest people who would do anything so that I could not become President. They are now exposed!

 

[carlosy]

Just in case anybody thinks that holding the opinion that Trump is in a lot of trouble is partisan, this guy is a former Chief Assistant US Attorney, writes for the National Review and is a fellow of the National Review Institute, and is a contributor to Fox News: https://twitter.com/AndrewCMcCarthy/status/1071556788435251201

Rule one:
Everyone who says anything against Trump is
- a liar
- partisan
- a witch hunter
- a terrible person
- part of the angry democratic mob (which btw has millions of members, SO SAD)


So make your pick.