Mueller investigation

[Underseer]

Will, do you understand that there was will be trials based on actual facts instead of your alternative facts? You get that, right? We're going to have more news about indictments and trials and in a matter of months of not weeks your claims are going to be compared to reality. And by reality, I mean actual reality, not the fantasy world created by alternative facts that you live in.

Why would you make all of these claims when you must know that you're going to be shown to be very wrong very soon? If you are like most conservatives, it wasn't that long ago that you confidently predicted that we would never be here, am I right?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Why on earth would you be cheering when you consider the precedent.

“The opinion is troubling, because people make representations to the government all the time through their lawyers, and I think there’s a general expectation of confidentiality behind the conversations that go into those representations,’’ said Peter D. Hardy, a partner at the Ballard Spahr law firm. “It’s widening a door that’s not often used. And the wider the door gets, maybe the more people will use it.’’

People don't use their lawyers to make FALSE representations to the government all the time. Since Mueller had proof that the statements were blatantly false, there was no "door widening". Mr. Hardy is full of hot air.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why on earth would you be cheering when you consider the precedent.

a door that’s not often used.

Is it really a precedent if it's been done before?

They're not leaning on the lawyers for defending a guy, they're using an existing exception. Confidentiality doesn't apply to the lawyer if the client lied to him. To get to this, prosecutors will have to already have quite a bit of evidence that lies were told. They can't just go fishing, asking lawyers, "Did your client make you lie to the court?"

More like, "You can see here that THIS testimony was a lie. Were you aware that it was a lie? Or were you bamboozled by the lying liar, too?"

 

[Underseer]

Why let him bog everything down by making everyone chase after important details?

Will,
Trump's campaign manager was indicted for conspiracy against the United States.

Do you really think these are the last of the charges we're going to see?

Do you really think Trump didn't commit treason?

Statistically speaking, studies show that you would still support him even if you thought he committed treason, so why is all of these flimsy arguments to convince yourself that he didn't commit treason? What do you gain by pretending he isn't a traitor? What do you lose by admitting to yourself what is obvious to the whole world, including the Russian population?

We already know he's a traitor and we already know you're a traitor-lover. All of this desperate backpedaling and mental gymnastics seems so unnecessary. Aren't you exhausted from all of this effort?

 

[starwater]

The continued denials from the WH and 45 are ever more desperate. He protests too much.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The continued denials from the WH and 45 are ever more desperate. He protests too much.

Does he though? Yelling about nonsense and changing the topic of the conversation in response to scandal got him elected to the Presidency. It may well work here, too.

 

[KeepTalking]

Hmmm, what connection does a campaign manager have to the campaign they are managing? I have to admit, I am mystified!

.
I didn't ask how the campaign manger was related to the campaign.

Well, the subject of your question was about as ambiguous as it gets: "What is the connection to the campaign?"

In what way is the charge of conspiracy related to the campaign.

The charge is related to the campaign because it is leveled at the manager of the campaign. Given that the indictment covers criminal activity that occurred while he was the manager of the campaign, that charge could cover activity that is related to the campaign as well.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In what way is the charge of conspiracy related to the campaign.

Wow, what a ridiculous question. Look, this is really, really, really simple.

Let's start with what needs to be demonstrated:
(1) a conspiracy
(2) a relation to the campaign

The conspiracy is related to the campaign because it is related to the campaign staff. How do we know it is related to the campaign staff? Papa was convicted. Among the documented evidence were emails sent between himself and other staffers. Some things were followed up on, while others were not. So, the conspiracy was related to the campaign staff and therefore the campaign.

Okay, so now what conspiracy? The campaign staffers all lied about their connections and communications to Russians. Multiple persons (to include Papa) lied. This means they kept the secrets of each other secret, too--to include their intents to use Russians to get dirt on Clinton but in the most trivial case, just their knowledge of communications with the Russians.

Q.E.D.

Papa got convicted. Don Jr even admitted having a meeting but after originally lying and then not giving all the details. But his whole effort to be transparent was dictated by TA-DA: the other papa.

 

[Opoponax]

Sorry guys, Papadopoulos shouldn't be a very good witness...

What reasonable person would believe him when he has already given unreliable information, and has a threat hanging over his head about ...lying?
Of course if you appoint a special prosecutor that person is going to pretend to look and find something.
What else will he say..."sorry couldn't find anything".

In an investigation of this magnitude and import, no attorney is going to attempt to use hearsay as primary evidence. If Mueller were to do so, it would mean he isn't fit to practice law. It would mean he'd never taken an evidence course in his life. I cannot reasonably believe that an entire team of attorneys with the reputations Mueller's team has would make such an enormous error. To speculate that that is the case borders on fantasy.

The Papadopolous indictment is damning. The specific evidence is only alluded to in the indictment, which is both common and understandable. That's because the communiques alluded to likely contains information the prosecution doesn't want the public, suspects in particular, to have access to yet. It is evidence they're going to use to indict more people with. This is done for a variety of reasons e.g. they don't want evidence destroyed by suspects, they don't want suspects fleeing, etc.

Now, the charge of lying to the government was an obvious plea deal, the plea consisting of lesser charges in exchange for information on bigger, more important figures than Papadopolous. This doesn't take a juris doctorate to figure out. And again we come back to this: Mueller and co. wouldn't have given Papadopolous such a deal if the information he had didn't check out.

Going forward, what we can expect to see are more indictments. What I suspect is that all of the relevant actors in the Papadopolous universe have been contacted and spoken with, or they've been under surveillance since their names came to light and will soon be spoken with by the FBI.

Papadopolous is the tip of the iceberg... or maybe not. He's just the first one we know of who has sang to the government about what he knows with respect to the Trump campaign colluding with Russians. Remember, he was arrested months ago. There could be, and likely are more than just him.

Anyway, the notion that he's not a reliable witness and/or that the government only has flimsy hearsay evidence is, for lack of a better way to put it, fucking silly.

 

[Artemus]

I don't usually pay much attention to RawStory.com (way too sensationalist), but they make an interesting point here. Per the New York Times, Papadopolous proposed to Trump himself a meeting between Trump and Putin, but Sessions strongly objected and asked everyone to not speak of it again. Sessions later denied to Congress any knowledge of communications between the campaign and Russians. Will Sessions be the next to drop?

Sessions will be the last to drop, I think, in order to protect Mueller.

New Republic has also picked up on the apparent perjury. I think you are right about Sessions being the last to be charged, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump uses this as an excuse to fire Sessions even without charges filed. He's all but said that he wants to and apparently has no ability to understand the political fallout of doing something like that. I kind of hope it happens...this is providing no end of entertainment.

 

[J842P]

Will, do you understand that there was will be trials based on actual facts instead of your alternative facts? You get that, right? We're going to have more news about indictments and trials and in a matter of months of not weeks your claims are going to be compared to reality. And by reality, I mean actual reality, not the fantasy world created by alternative facts that you live in.

Why would you make all of these claims when you must know that you're going to be shown to be very wrong very soon? If you are like most conservatives, it wasn't that long ago that you confidently predicted that we would never be here, am I right?

You think Will is *conservative*?

 

[J842P]

Statistically speaking, studies show that you would still support him even if you thought he committed treason, so why is all of these flimsy arguments to convince yourself that he didn't commit treason? What do you gain by pretending he isn't a traitor? What do you lose by admitting to yourself what is obvious to the whole world, including the Russian population?

We already know he's a traitor and we already know you're a traitor-lover. All of this desperate backpedaling and mental gymnastics seems so unnecessary. Aren't you exhausted from all of this effort?

It is amazing that you can say this without irony, then accuse Will of being the conservative.

None of the crimes that Trump or anyone in his campaign/admin have been accused of can be called "treason". That you use the conservative-go-to smear of "traitor" is highly telling.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Statistically speaking, studies show that you would still support him even if you thought he committed treason, so why is all of these flimsy arguments to convince yourself that he didn't commit treason? What do you gain by pretending he isn't a traitor? What do you lose by admitting to yourself what is obvious to the whole world, including the Russian population?

We already know he's a traitor and we already know you're a traitor-lover. All of this desperate backpedaling and mental gymnastics seems so unnecessary. Aren't you exhausted from all of this effort?

It is amazing that you can say this without irony, then accuse Will of being the conservative.

None of the crimes that Trump or anyone in his campaign/admin have been accused of can be called "treason". That you use the conservative-go-to smear of "traitor" is highly telling.

This is true. Treason, while it might have a particular meaning in the general use of the word, with regards to the Constitution, it has a rigid definition and even consorting with Russia to help win an election isn't Treason mainly because we aren't at war with them. Russia isn't the "enemy". Certainly not a friend, but not an enemy.

And I think Will is paid to post.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

It is amazing that you can say this without irony, then accuse Will of being the conservative.

None of the crimes that Trump or anyone in his campaign/admin have been accused of can be called "treason". That you use the conservative-go-to smear of "traitor" is highly telling.

This is true. Treason, while it might have a particular meaning in the general use of the word, with regards to the Constitution, it has a rigid definition and even consorting with Russia to help win an election isn't Treason mainly because we aren't at war with them. Russia isn't the "enemy". Certainly not a friend, but not an enemy.

And I think Will is paid to post.

If he is, they're not getting their money's worth.

 

[Artemus]

Vanity Fair has a great article on how Trump/Trump world is handling it all. A quick summary of Trump world items:

1. They finally realize that this is real and not a liberal pipe dream.

2. Advisors in the West Wing are taking active steps to avoid getting involved.

3. Bannon wants outright war against Mueller.

4. Stone wants a Giuliani buddy or a Fox News pundit (Napolitano) appointed to investigate Mueller regarding the uranium deal.

A summary of Trump himself items:

1) Venting in private to friends. (No suprise here.)

2) Why hasn't a special prosecutor been assigned to investigation Hillary? (Uh, how 'bout a lack of evidence and SHE'S NOT THE POTUS. FBI can handle that, Dumbass.)

3) What about Tony Podesta? (Mueller has apparently investigated him, it seems, BUT HE IS NOT THE POTUS AND THE FBI CAN HANDLE IT, Dumbass^2.)

4) It's Kushner's fault for telling him to fire Flynn and Comey.


These guys are fricking idiots. And that is being polite.

 

[J842P]

It is amazing that you can say this without irony, then accuse Will of being the conservative.

None of the crimes that Trump or anyone in his campaign/admin have been accused of can be called "treason". That you use the conservative-go-to smear of "traitor" is highly telling.

This is true. Treason, while it might have a particular meaning in the general use of the word, with regards to the Constitution, it has a rigid definition and even consorting with Russia to help win an election isn't Treason mainly because we aren't at war with them. Russia isn't the "enemy". Certainly not a friend, but not an enemy.

And I think Will is paid to post.

I don't. I've had many disagreements with Will over the years, and IMO, he tends to be conspiratorially minded. I do think he is sincere, though.

I think it is ugly to smear someone as a "lover of traitors", or even as a paid shill, simply because they disagree with you.

Will's support for Trump, which I'm not sure I would even call it that, comes from a relatively accurate view of the US as a war-mongering, and a misguided view of Trump as potentially changing that.

I can't necessarily blame someone from Australia for not being able to see that there was little hope that Trump would do anything to change America's foreign policy approach, which has stayed steady through various different personalities, regardless of what they claim during the campaign trail.

I can't say I blame him for opposing Clinton given her foreign policy.

 

[Ford]

Vanity Fair has a great article on how Trump/Trump world is handling it all. A quick summary of Trump world items:

1. They finally realize that this is real and not a liberal pipe dream.

2. Advisors in the West Wing are taking active steps to avoid getting involved.

3. Bannon wants outright war against Mueller.

4. Stone wants a Giuliani buddy or a Fox News pundit (Napolitano) appointed to investigate Mueller regarding the uranium deal.

A summary of Trump himself items:

1) Venting in private to friends. (No suprise here.)

2) Why hasn't a special prosecutor been assigned to investigation Hillary? (Uh, how 'bout a lack of evidence and SHE'S NOT THE POTUS. FBI can handle that, Dumbass.)

3) What about Tony Podesta? (Mueller has apparently investigated him, it seems, BUT HE IS NOT THE POTUS AND THE FBI CAN HANDLE IT, Dumbass^2.)

4) It's Kushner's fault for telling him to fire Flynn and Comey.


These guys are fricking idiots. And that is being polite.

It seems like they really want to close the barn door, but don't realize the horse has already left.

Mueller seems to be careful and methodical, so if he was willing to release indictments and announce an earlier guilty plea, he's either completely done with his investigation and this is all we'll get, or he's wrapped up information gathering and is moving on to pursuing charges against others.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is true. Treason, while it might have a particular meaning in the general use of the word, with regards to the Constitution, it has a rigid definition and even consorting with Russia to help win an election isn't Treason mainly because we aren't at war with them. Russia isn't the "enemy". Certainly not a friend, but not an enemy.

And I think Will is paid to post.

I don't. I've had many disagreements with Will over the years, and IMO, he tends to be conspiratorially minded. I do think he is sincere, though.

I think it is ugly to smear someone as a "lover of traitors", or even as a paid shill, simply because they disagree with you.

I think he is a paid shill, not because he doesn't agree with me. I've never made such an accusation on plenty of the right-wing posters here. But Will clearly has an agenda... as does whichphilosophy.

 

[Will Wiley]

Anyway, the notion that he's not a reliable witness and/or that the government only has flimsy hearsay evidence is, for lack of a better way to put it, fucking silly.

I gave some reasons and evidence why Papadopoulos is not reliable.

What is your evidence he is a reliable witness? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it even though you probably didn't know he existed until this week?

Why should we believe your government would not take action of flimsy hearsay evidence?

The fact is your government does things on flimsy hearsay evidence all the time, and people like you keep cheering for them.

Let me know if you want some examples, though i'm sure you now realise that it was you who was being "fucking silly"

 

[blastula]

Will shills for Russia whether he is paid or not. He's only indirectly for Trump, only so far as where it benefits Russia. He doesn't care about warmongering in itself, he only cares about warmongering by the US because it's an adversary of Russia. The same goes for government corruption.