Trump's Russian Collusion

[CU88]

Late this a.m., Trump booted Pelosi & Shumer out of the WH, throwing down the impeachment gauntlet.

Then early this p.m., the man Trump just pardoned published this. Coincidence ?

Trump's next move = declass & release the Deep State investigation documents -- dribble or deluge ?

I don't see the d game as Impeachment. They are just looking finding o d lies to throw up against the general election and see what sticks. o d keeps giving them material.

The phrase "cover up" ticked o d off and that will start to get used more.

Yes, definitely got under his skin...he understands the power of a phrase.

"cover-up" fits to a tee.

I think "corruption" is the charge that will also stick.
Across the Administration, his business, his family, his cronies.
So many examples. Extraordinary really.

Dems would be wise to stick to those two themes, "corruption" and "cover-up", rather than "collusion" and "obstruction".

+1

[CU88]

I am not as smart as the rest of you here, but this seems to me why we need to see financial records, no?

Bank CEO Stephen Calk charged with corruptly soliciting a presidential administration position in exchange for approving $16 million in loans

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ba ... nistration

I am old school, but I would call this straight up bribery and corruption.

[dislaxxic]

TRUMP CLAIMS HE WAS JOKING WHEN HE GAVE RUSSIAN HACKERS A WISH LIST TO HACK HILLARY, BUT HIS SENIOR AIDES DISAGREE

C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y What's that spell?

..

[tech37]

Dems would be wise to stick to those two themes, "corruption" and "cover-up", rather than "collusion" and "obstruction".

Well sure, "if at first you don't succeed"...

[3rdPersonPlural]

Dems would be wise to stick to those two themes, "corruption" and "cover-up", rather than "collusion" and "obstruction".

Well sure, "if at first you don't succeed"...

Legally, there is no such thing as 'collusion". There are, of course, legal elements that point to collusion, but "Collusion" is not something with prescribed legal consequences. Ask your lawyer.

"Obstruction of Justice" reads as 'Defiance of the Deep State" to Trump fans. This issue has no legs if you want to change minds.

MD76 has a point, though, that Trump is and has been corrupt since day one (my extrapolation) , and he is not being transparent to the people despite his claims to the contrary.

I don't know if Congress has the stones to hoist Trump onto his own petard which is needed to drive these points home.

[get it to x]

Dems would be wise to stick to those two themes, "corruption" and "cover-up", rather than "collusion" and "obstruction".

Well sure, "if at first you don't succeed"...

More like, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".

[a fan]

Hammering ol' Hillary on Benghazi for four long, seemingly pointless years worked, did it not?

[MDlaxfan76]

Dems would be wise to stick to those two themes, "corruption" and "cover-up", rather than "collusion" and "obstruction".

Well sure, "if at first you don't succeed"...

Legally, there is no such thing as 'collusion". There are, of course, legal elements that point to collusion, but "Collusion" is not something with prescribed legal consequences. Ask your lawyer.

"Obstruction of Justice" reads as 'Defiance of the Deep State" to Trump fans. This issue has no legs if you want to change minds.

MD76 has a point, though, that Trump is and has been corrupt since day one (my extrapolation) , and he is not being transparent to the people despite his claims to the contrary.

I don't know if Congress has the stones to hoist Trump onto his own petard which is needed to drive these points home.

KISS principle.

I simply think that communicating in simpler, easier to demonstrate, terms would be to the Dems benefit. Pound on the themes that are easy for most voters, even the lowest common denominator voters, to comprehend.

And focus where you don't need the DOJ under this AG to make clear that the charge sticks. If you can get further validation from various prosecutors and testimony in front of Congress, all the better, but don't depend upon it.

"corruption" can be shown in all sorts of ways, by Trump himself, his businesses, his family, his cronies, his appointees...very long list, and I think it's very easy to cite. Some are criminal forms of corruption, some are just major embarrassments. Throughout his life, Trump has lied and lied and lied, cheated others, and then lied some more. And the people he has attracted to him are corrupt as all get out. For decades in his business, during his campaign, and as he runs his Administration. Pound that message.

"cover-up" is much easier to demonstrate than "obstruction of justice" which may well be prosecuted and convicted after he leaves office, but it's not going to be prosecuted by this AG and his reports. So, go after what is eminently clear: he lies and lies and lies in order to cover-up misdeeds, whether criminal or just embarrassments; but there's no question that he lies flagrantly, and has done so again and again and again. His claims of "transparency" are flat out laughable, so pound on that theme.

And of course, follow the money.
That's where most of the corruption lies, and where the efforts to cover-up are most intense, most obvious.
He's panicked by it.

I'd note that these messages were impossible for HRC to emphasize.

Only a few of the Dem candidates can do this, but for those who can, like Mayor Pete and Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard, the theme of "coward" is a theme that will stick. Pound it.

[a fan]

Alright Trump fans. Please tell me that you're not ok with this....

Trump took the highly unusual step on Thursday of granting Barr the power to declassify the most closely guarded secrets of the CIA and the country’s 15 other intelligence agencies. Barr had asked for the authority to facilitate his review of the intelligence agencies’ involvement in the early stages of the Russia investigation.


So giving up our intel methods is cool now?



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... mwMiu6IBUI

[old salt]

Barr won't give up anything that Mueller hasn't already disclosed.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/ ... ice-review

DNI Coats Statement on the Department of Justice Review

Much like we have with other investigations and reviews, the Intelligence Community (IC) will provide the Department of Justice all of the appropriate information for its review of intelligence activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. As part of that process, I am confident that the Attorney General will work with the IC in accordance with the long-established standards to protect highly-sensitive classified information that, if publicly released, would put our national security at risk. The IC will continue to faithfully execute its mission of providing timely, apolitical intelligence to the President and policymakers.

Daniel R. Coats, Director of National Intelligence

[MDlaxfan76]

Barr won't give up anything that Mueller hasn't already disclosed.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/ ... ice-review

DNI Coats Statement on the Department of Justice Review

Much like we have with other investigations and reviews, the Intelligence Community (IC) will provide the Department of Justice all of the appropriate information for its review of intelligence activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. As part of that process, I am confident that the Attorney General will work with the IC in accordance with the long-established standards to protect highly-sensitive classified information that, if publicly released, would put our national security at risk. The IC will continue to faithfully execute its mission of providing timely, apolitical intelligence to the President and policymakers.

Daniel R. Coats, Director of National Intelligence

Don't really understand what would make you confident on this, Salty.
We already know that Barr is willing to misrepresent facts for political purposes.

Glad to hear that DNI Coats is paying attention, but that statement sounds like more of a warning to Barr than a reassurance.

Note that no declassification nor directive to cooperate was necessary for Barr to do a review of the intelligence.

No one without classified clearance at the appropriate levels should be reviewing the intelligence, period. So, get the right cleared people to do so. And nothing classified should be disclosed publicly unless absolutely essential to do so, and they sure as heck shouldn't do so for political purposes.

But Trump has made clear that he will only accept one answer, that criminal 'spying' occurred and he wants key people on his 'enemies list' to go to jail for 'treason'.

From all we've seen of Barr, he looks like he knows that's the outcome he needs to deliver, regardless of the truth.

[old salt]

Don't cry until you're hurt.
It's necessary to get the IC to share classified intel with the DoJ IG & the 2 US Atty's Barr has investigating.
I'll worry if/when Coats resigns. They can refer to "informant #1,2,3, etc"

Mueller, NYT & WP already disclosed that a source close to Putin is an informant (who leaked that ?)
Even Clapper, on CNN, grumbled that after the Mueller indictments & report, he's not sure there's that much left to disclose.
Mueller & leakers/MSM already outed Mifsud, Halper & Azra Turk (will we learn whether or not she's a natural blond ?).

[cradleandshoot]

Robert Mueller will make a statement about his investigation on CSPAN at 11am. He will answer no questions. It is about time Mr Mueller said something. I hope it is meaningful and informative.

[OCanada]

Well OS Trump has a decades old reputation as being a leaker and source of inside information. Recall when he was revealing secrets to Putin?

The high volume leaker is known. Given the lack k of transparency in this administration, suppressing previously routinely released information it could be someone leaked it because they love their country or have an ax to grind etc.

I think you are missing a piece there OS. There are a dozen ongoing investigations referred out by the SC. There is a lot going on in those investigations.

It is described as lengthy and substantive

[CU88]

Robert Mueller: "As set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

[cradleandshoot]

So Mueller pretty much said dickey doo. Close down his office, pick up all his toys, retire and ride off into the sunset. Mueller reminds me of the kid in HS who starts the food fight in the cafeteria then slinks out the back door once all the chaos has been started. I find it hard to believe Mueller has nothing left to say. Maybe the book deal down the road is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. After 2 years of investigating the nation has even more questions than it did at the start.

[seacoaster]

"So Mueller pretty much said dickey doo."

Only if you weren't listening or were predisposed to not hearing what he said. He said, pretty clearly, that if his office had confidence that the President had not committed a crime the report would have said just that. And it doesn't. So he said that the Report does not clear the President; he said that the President's conduct has or would, but for the fact that he is the President, place him in legal peril.

[dislaxxic]

Not really, Cradle. The answers are staring us in the face, but Don the Con's efforts to obfuscate and mis-direct the conversation is having great effect, especially among the low-information voter types that keep his approval ratings slightly north of "deplorable".

"Even if we wanted to prosecute, we couldn't". Not a direct quote exactly, from today, but clearly what he, and his report, says.

Imagine where you'd be on this issue if he HAD recommended an indictment, or, for example, named him an "unindicted co-conspirator". You, yes YOU would be leading the charge against a "rogue prosecutor" that was making an allegation that could not be effectively refuted outside a formal criminal/impeachment trial, the very situation that the infamous OLC Memo seeks to prevent. Looked at another way, how do you suppose Clinton supporters felt in the wake of Comey's memo regarding her emails? An episode that immeasurably harmed its target largely because of the innuendo it involved. Comey didn't indict her, but the effect of his statement was the same as if he had. Nothing, so far, has been found that approaches criminality in that affair, unlike the situation we have with Don, a case that is RIFE with criminal obstruction behavior...

What i find interesting in all this is that we keep hearing about how the R's were so harmed by their push for impeaching Bubba Clinton, so, ergo, Dems should not do it now. Let's not forget that that whole Bubba episode was IN FACT mostly a witch hunt, a craven effort to bring down a D president for a sexual indiscretion...and NOW we have clear evidence of a MUCH more heinous and serious set of criminal activity that far out-strips the perjury that Clinton committed. The sanctimonious pr!ck Lindsey Graham saw to it that his "righteous outrage" carried the day...Is there ANYONE that doubts that, had Trump been compelled to testify under oath, that he would not have committed FAR worse perjury and obstruction that Bill Clinton ever did?

I seriously doubt it...

..

[cradleandshoot]

"So Mueller pretty much said dickey doo."

Only if you weren't listening or were predisposed to not hearing what he said. He said, pretty clearly, that if his office had confidence that the President had not committed a crime the report would have said just that. And it doesn't. So he said that the Report does not clear the President; he said that the President's conduct has or would, but for the fact that he is the President, place him in legal peril.

The first report I read did not go in to that much detail. The second report is much harsher but still leaves open many other doors to be investigated by other prosecutors. Mueller still did nothing to confirm nor deny anything he found out about Trump. IMO when you are trying to get at the truth and your dealing with a plethora of shady characters... Good luck with that. What you wind up with is a whole bunch of things you suspect... but very little you can prove.

[cradleandshoot]

Not really, Cradle. The answers are staring us in the face, but Don the Con's efforts to obfuscate and mis-direct the conversation is having great effect, especially among the low-information voter types that keep his approval ratings slightly north of "deplorable".

"Even if we wanted to prosecute, we couldn't". Not a direct quote exactly, from today, but clearly what he, and his report, says.

Imagine where you'd be on this issue if he HAD recommended an indictment, or, for example, named him an "unindicted co-conspirator". You, yes YOU would be leading the charge against a "rogue prosecutor" that was making an allegation that could not be effectively refuted outside a formal criminal/impeachment trial, the very situation that the infamous OLC Memo seeks to prevent. Looked at another way, how do you suppose Clinton supporters felt in the wake of Comey's memo regarding her emails? An episode that immeasurably harmed its target largely because of the innuendo it involved. Comey didn't indict her, but the effect of his statement was the same as if he had. Nothing, so far, has been found that approaches criminality in that affair, unlike the situation we have with Don, a case that is RIFE with criminal obstruction behavior...

What i find interesting in all this is that we keep hearing about how the R's were so harmed by their push for impeaching Bubba Clinton, so, ergo, Dems should not do it now. Let's not forget that that whole Bubba episode was IN FACT mostly a witch hunt, a craven effort to bring down a D president for a sexual indiscretion...and NOW we have clear evidence of a MUCH more heinous and serious set of criminal activity that far out-strips the perjury that Clinton committed. The sanctimonious pr!ck Lindsey Graham saw to it that his "righteous outrage" carried the day...Is there ANYONE that doubts that, had Trump been compelled to testify under oath, that he would not have committed FAR worse perjury and obstruction that Bill Clinton ever did?

I seriously doubt it...

..

The irony here as I see it Dis is this... this stupid rube Trump who can't walk and chew gum at the same time has proven to be as slippery as Al Capone was. Trump is many things as a human being that we detest... stupid is not one of them. Like Al Capone in the end he will have to face justice. Today, as POTUS. He doesn't have to answer to anyone. IMO that is the major motivating fact why he wants to get re-elected. All I can think of is the Mel Brooks line from history of the world... it's good to be king...