Trump's Russian Collusion

[dislaxxic]

MUELLER IS CLOSE TO DONE, BUT THE ANDREW WEISSMANN DEPARTURE IS OVERBLOWN

"There is abundant evidence that Trump entered into a quid pro quo conspiracy with Russia, trading dirt and dollars for sanctions relief and other policy considerations. But it’s unclear whether Mueller has certainty that he’d have an 85% chance of winning convictions, which is around what he’d need to convince DOJ to charge it. There is also abundant evidence that Trump and others obstructed the investigation, but charging Trump in that presents constitutional questions.

If Mueller does charge either of those things, I’d still expect him to resign and either retire or move back to WilmerHale and let other prosecutors prosecute it. That’s what Leon Jaworski did in Watergate."

..

[CU88]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... es-1223048

Rick Gates — still cooperating! Mueller's office asks to delay his sentencing again, as Gates "continues to cooperate with respect to several ongoing investigations." They ask for another 60 days until the next update

[CU88]

I am cutting and pasting some Tweets discussing the strategy o d has to smear the press and the “deep state” as he knows what findings are to be brought to light : https://twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield/stat ... 3735784449

Graham— as a Trump ally—is behaving according to script. After the house voted overwhelmingly to release a Mueller report, Graham blocked the Senate from voting & insisted that the Senate vote to look into alleged DOJ/ FBI misconduct . . .

1/ . . . particularly misconduct in the HRC investigation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 3c07433925
This kind of maneuver is exactly what we can expect as investigations close in on Trump.
I’ve argued that Trump isn't planning a traditional legal defense as investigations close in.

2/ How can he? Trump, Giuliani, Sarah Sanders, etc., lie and constantly change their stories, right out there in public. Remember “I have nothing to do with Russia, folks.” Oct. 2016. And all those denials about business deals in Russia?
https://theweek.com/speedreads/810185/8 ... ess-russia

3/ Everyone knows that people who lie & change their stories aren't credible witnesses. Plus Trump keeps obstructing justice (a crime) right there in plain sight. He came right out and said he will “fight back” against the Mueller probe! (obstruct)

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/ ... ack-514513


4/ And what about all that witness intimidation? Right there in plain view. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... d79a3e2394 … https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... ng-n958171 … … You can’t prepare a traditional legal defense while intimidating witnesses, obstructing justice & changing your story each time new evidence emerges.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... ng-n958171

5/ Trump’s critics conclude that Trump is losing his marbles, melting down, and that his lawyers are asleep at the switch. I believe there’s method to the madness (can happen at the same time as actual madness) People ask what Trump will do when he’s cornered. You're seeing it.

6/ I used to worry that Trump would start a war to distract from his misdeeds—but that is very 20th century. A war would likely harm Trump’s financial interests and he might even get hurt. 21st century authoritarians have more effective, less bloody, and less costly methods.

7/ 21st century autocrats immunize themselves from by torpedoing truth, undermining law enforcement, and dividing the citizens against each other. Then they keep the fighters fighting. I'll present 4 related and overlapping modern-autocrat-defenses.

8/ Defense #1: The Deep State defense This one goes like this: Trump is being unfairly targeted by political opponents. The entire system is corrupt so we can’t trust anything that comes out of a law enforcement investigation.

9/ Defense #2: Whataboutism. This involves persuading people that ALL politicians are dishonest (which makes going after Trump political). The “whataboutism” defense is steeped in cynicism, and results in the nation dissolving into tribes . . .

10/ If all politicians are lying cheats, each side prefers their own lying cheat to the enemy lying cheat. This is why the GOP keeps talking about Hillary Clinton. She's the "enemy liar." Trump is "our liar."

11/ Defense #3: The Truth is Unknowable Part of this strategy involves what Steve Bannon called “Flood the zone with turd” and what the Rand Institute calls a “Firehose of falsehoods.” https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status ... 0505370624 …
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... _PE198.pdf …

12/ If the news includes a constant barrage of lies & innuendos, people eventually give up trying to figure out the truth. As soon as they become persuaded that we’ll never really know who is guilty and who isn’t, fascism can take root.

13/ Timothy Snyder explains that fascism begins by clearing away factuality. As @jasonintrator says, without truth, you cannot speak truth to power. So there's only power. Defense #4: Divide and Conquer Trump is working to divide the country into who is "for" or "against" him.

14/ That way, the battle isn’t about truth or justice, it is about loyalty and which side you’re on. As this WaPo article argued, Trump tried to make the border “emergency” about him—either GOP members are for him, or they are against him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... b3d5c23211

15/ Trump doesn’t want policy or decision making to be about truth and facts. he wants it to be about whether people are loyal to him. Paxton refers to this as a cult of leadership. Similarly, jury verdicts can be spun as political: “There were Democrats on the jury!”
16/ As the investigation closes in on Trump he will cast this as a war between Trump and the Democrats. He will ask everyone to pick sides based on loyalty, not truth. Dividing Americans is a goal that Putin and Trump share. (They're on the same "team")

17/ Remember just before the election when Wikileaks encouraged the Trump campaign to contest the results if he lost to HRC? https://www.businessinsider.com/wikilea ... st-2017-11 … The attempt to create division is why the far right wing has been talking about “Civil War":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 65059a2116

18/ Fox news commentators are casually informing their viewers that “it’s going to be total war.” In an interview with Breitbart Trump said he has “tough” people on his side, and hinted that when they reach a certain point, things could get “very bad.” (emphasis added)

19/ To counter this, the left needs to keep cool. Do not add to the hysteria. I suggest that an appropriate response is: “A few fringe kooks on the far right are talking about Civil War. That’s what we can expect from fringe kooks.”

20/ The far right wing has always resorted to violence when they feel threatened. I also recommend not getting embroiled in the many inaccuracies and absurd statements in Tweets like this one. That is what Trump wants. The intention is to keep everyone playing “whack a lie.”

21/ Playing “whack a lie” adds to the confusion. I suggest a simpler message: “The president is lying again & trying to undermine faith in our institutions. All Americans should oppose this. We don’t always like what law enforcement or courts do, but we accept their decisions.”

[CU88]

Here is her running blog on

https://russia-investigation-summary.com

Feb update:

The court found that Manafort lied three times to prosecutors in violation of his plea agreement. Manafort lied about a payment of $125K, he lied about his interactions and communications with Kilimnik, and he lied about matters pertinent to another on-going investigation.

We learn that Manafort and Kilimnik talked about something very explosive, but the details are redacted. We know they talked about this matter in January 2017 when Kilimnik came to the inauguration, in February 2017, and winter of 2018.

[tech37]

Good for Graham.

Something some of us have been asking for for two years now...

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/natio ... d7a7eabcf9

[MDlaxfan76]

Good for Graham.

Something some of us have been asking for for two years now...

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/natio ... d7a7eabcf9

So, what was he waiting two years for? Heck, why was anyone waiting?
He "calls for" an investigation??? Like it never occurred to anyone???

The GOP controlled both houses, the White House and every relevant agency.


come on tech37, this is BS and you (and Graham) know it.
Amend that; Graham knows it.

[tech37]

Good for Graham.

Something some of us have been asking for for two years now...

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/natio ... d7a7eabcf9

So, what was he waiting two years for? Heck, why was anyone waiting?
He "calls for" an investigation??? Like it never occurred to anyone???

The GOP controlled both houses, the White House and every relevant agency.


come on tech37, this is BS and you (and Graham) know it.
Amend that; Graham knows it.

Unreal. So there's a statute of limitations for crimes quite possibly committed by bad cops and Obama's DOJ? Talk about being an "apologist."

[MDlaxfan76]

Good for Graham.

Something some of us have been asking for for two years now...

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/natio ... d7a7eabcf9

So, what was he waiting two years for? Heck, why was anyone waiting?
He "calls for" an investigation??? Like it never occurred to anyone???

The GOP controlled both houses, the White House and every relevant agency.


come on tech37, this is BS and you (and Graham) know it.
Amend that; Graham knows it.

Unreal. So there's a statute of limitations for crimes quite possibly committed by bad cops and Obama's DOJ? Talk about being an "apologist."

Again BS; you know darn well that I'm consistent that the bums, regardless of who they are (I'm a Republican!), should get prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If there's actual evidence of crime, nail'em.

But you don't answer as to why Graham is "calling" for something fully within his party's power for two years. It's crass partisan work, he knows it, and everyone with half a clue knows it.

[a fan]

Good for Graham.

Something some of us have been asking for for two years now...

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/natio ... d7a7eabcf9

Yeah, but you also said special investigators are bad, remember? And that they take too long, and look under any wrong to find a crime.

You also insisted that you can't trust the DoJ, the FBI, the CIA, the Courts, et. al.

So who's going to do the investigating? And how long should they get to investigate?

Or is "this different?"

[tech37]

Good for Graham.

Something some of us have been asking for for two years now...

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/natio ... d7a7eabcf9

Yeah, but you also said special investigators are bad, remember? And that they take too long, and look under any wrong to find a crime.

You also insisted that you can't trust the DoJ, the FBI, the CIA, the Courts, et. al.

So who's going to do the investigating? And how long should they get to investigate?

Or is "this different?"

Ha nice try a fan! Show us where I said "special investigators are bad." Once again, you disingenuously attribute something I never said. This is a perfect example why it's so much fun debating you.

[MDlaxfan76]

Good for Graham.

Something some of us have been asking for for two years now...

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/natio ... d7a7eabcf9

Yeah, but you also said special investigators are bad, remember? And that they take too long, and look under any wrong to find a crime.

You also insisted that you can't trust the DoJ, the FBI, the CIA, the Courts, et. al.

So who's going to do the investigating? And how long should they get to investigate?

Or is "this different?"

Ha nice try a fan! Show us where I said "special investigators are bad." Once again, you disingenuously attribute something I never said. This is a perfect example why it's so much fun debating you.

We don't have LP to search, but it may be that we jumble several posters who seem to always being giving shade to Trump, throwing around terms like Deep State and Fake News, decry the Mueller investigation ( a lifelong R appointed by a lifelong R), etc, etc, yet didn't think anything was inappropriate about a very long, baldly partisan investigation of HRC.

I thought some of that investigation of HRC was indeed appropriate, particularly what went down in the tick tock before and after Benghazi, but the way that got spun up felt over the top. Not at all to dismiss that tragedy, but the general financial corruption that I believe was part of the Clinton machine deserved further attention, IMO. But as I've argued before, the Clintons were masters at covering their tracks, plausible or at least semi-plausible deniability, making prosecution not likely to be successful. And at least the professionals don't charge crimes they know they can't prove.

But she lost. Largely due to the sense that her integrity was suspect, enough so that Trump's dishonesty could be muted.

The R's had two full years to do further investigating. My hunch is that they'd already done quite a bit, looked for further evidence of actual crimes, and saw nothing they could actually prosecute faithfully. Again, the pros don't charge what they know they can't prove. The politicians are another matter.

This posturing now is just partisan BS to try to cover for Trump. Don't fall for it.

[a fan]

Ha nice try a fan! Show us where I said "special investigators are bad." Once again, you disingenuously attribute something I never said. This is a perfect example why it's so much fun debating you.

Can't search the old Laxpower forum, as you know.

You didn't gripe about the Deep State, and that you can't trust them? DoJ, FBI, etc.

So where do we get your investigator who will work for the DoJ?

[tech37]

Ha nice try a fan! Show us where I said "special investigators are bad." Once again, you disingenuously attribute something I never said. This is a perfect example why it's so much fun debating you.

Can't search the old Laxpower forum, as you know. Oh BS a fan. There is more than enough material right here and I've never said what you claim, on either board.

You didn't gripe about the Deep State, and that you can't trust them? DoJ, FBI, etc. I have never used the term "deep state."

So where do we get your investigator who will work for the DoJ? I don't know, that's not what I do, and it's up to AG Barr of course. Let's hope they proceed though and he appoints a reliable person.

[a fan]

Fine. Put it down in writing.

Who is it that you don't trust that you think needs investigating? Specific people? The entire FBI and DoJ? Everyone surrounding FISA?

This AG appointee will be a DoJ employee. My point is: you have already complained about the DoJ report that already cleared the FBI for wrongdoing surrounding the Trump/Hillary mess. So you're asking "someone else" from the DoJ to investigate. Again.

You really don't understand why I'm making fun of this circular logic?

[tech37]

My point is: you have already complained about the DoJ report that already cleared the FBI for wrongdoing surrounding the Trump/Hillary mess.

The point is on top of your head ... when/where did I complain about Horowitz's first report? Wrong guy again...

[a fan]

You didn't complain? Great. Then what do you want another investigation for? The DoJ already cleared the relevant parties.

[tech37]

You didn't complain? Great. Then what do you want another investigation for? The DoJ already cleared the relevant parties.

Horowitz's initial report did not include a look into probable FISA irregularities and possible crimes. No one has looked into what role Obama's DOJ may have played in the start of "Russian Collusion" grease fire.

Here a fan:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... estigation

"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reignited the investigation into alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse on Thursday, demanding from the Justice Department a wide array of documentation related to the surveillance of Carter Page and other members of the 2016 Trump campaign."

[Typical Lax Dad]

You didn't complain? Great. Then what do you want another investigation for? The DoJ already cleared the relevant parties.

When will Tech and his crew ask Trump to stand up to questions in a public forum. This woman wasn’t even an elected official at the time.

[a fan]

Horowitz's initial report did not include a look into probable FISA irregularities and possible crimes. No one has looked into what role Obama's DOJ may have played in the start of "Russian Collusion" grease fire.

First of all, Horowitz SPECIFICALLY looked into how the DoJ (and FBI) handled the pre-election nonsense. It's literally the point of the report.

So despite your previous denial and gamesmanship----you do indeed have a problem with that investigation. You think they didn't investigate enough. And it's FISA that bothers you. Do I have that right? You're upset about how Donnie was treated, not Hillary?

[a fan]

And to make you understand my position: go ahead and investigate FISA. I'm the one guy on the board who thinks the whole way that is set up is stupid, Unconstitutional, and has been abused since we expanded its powers post 9/11.

Conservatives and R's made fun of the ACLU when they pointed out how bad---and unconstitutional----the FISA system is.

Until a Republican was supposedly damaged by it. And oh boy, we can't have that. Someone has to pay for that.

How about we disband FISA? Problem solved. Or at a minimum, don't elect people to office who think it's smart to meet with Russian spies, giving any Judge who isn't an idiot----and who doesn't have to deal with public scrutiny----- reason to sign any secret squirrel warrant that comes their way.