RussiaGate

[blastula]

No, he never admitted to lying to protect his son. That would have been nonsensical in regards to Kislyak. He did admit to pleading guilty "in the best interests of my family."

And you're only wishfully pretending you know everything he did for some weird Trumpsucking reason.

It's not nonsensical when it comes to Turkey.

So now you're saying he did lie over something (potentially) illegal. And you're assuming he was asked about this then, and so all of a sudden you're claiming there is more that the FBI knows than what is public.

Even allowing for all your inconsistencies, that still doesn't answer why he lied about Kislyak, which he didn't have to do to protect his son.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nothing? Does Mueller know you are talking about this case to the public? Because otherwise, how can you reach that conclusion?
You are such a good brownshirter. Even after Trump's resignation, you'll defend the man you never liked.
Or... as happens in the real world, you charge based on what you know you can get a conviction. And he could also have plenty of other things that are on the side that he'll ignore in lieu of the plea.

But kudos for trying to make people believe that Flynn lied to the FBI because of nothing at all.

It's easy to reach a conclusion that they've got nothing on Flynn; they made him a worthless witness with the perjury plea.

Tell that to the mob.

How exactly is that supposed to tighten the vise on anyone else?

What, the plea? The specific plea? It isn't. The plea deal was the lesser charge in lieu of information, possibly wired conversations with people of interest, etc...

Wasn't all this drama about Russia, Russia, Russia? Is that over now?

I know you are trying, but the White House has already moved on in the argument to the 'The President can't obstruct justice' retort. So you should stop with the nothing happened part. The White House gave up on that. Now its, '...if something happened, it was still legal because the President is above the law.'

 

[Trausti]

No, he never admitted to lying to protect his son. That would have been nonsensical in regards to Kislyak. He did admit to pleading guilty "in the best interests of my family."

And you're only wishfully pretending you know everything he did for some weird Trumpsucking reason.

It's not nonsensical when it comes to Turkey.

So now you're saying he did lie over something (potentially) illegal. And you're assuming he was asked about this then, and so all of a sudden you're claiming there is more that the FBI knows than what is public.

Even allowing for all your inconsistencies, that still doesn't answer why he lied about Kislyak, which he didn't have to do to protect his son.

Your mixing things up. I'm not saying he lied about Kislyak to protect his son. I'm saying he took a plea to protect his son. They both worked as unregistered foreign agents for Turkey. That's what did in Manafort.

 

[Elixir]

Nothing? Does Mueller know you are talking about this case to the public? Because otherwise, how can you reach that conclusion?
You are such a good brownshirter. Even after Trump's resignation, you'll defend the man you never liked.
Or... as happens in the real world, you charge based on what you know you can get a conviction. And he could also have plenty of other things that are on the side that he'll ignore in lieu of the plea.

But kudos for trying to make people believe that Flynn lied to the FBI because of nothing at all.

It's easy to reach a conclusion that they've got nothing on Flynn; they made him a worthless witness with the perjury plea.

Yeah, Mueller is famous for overlooking that kind of glaringly obvious factor, right?
Or maybe... just ... MAYBE... he already got the goods, and his plea deal is contingent on the beans he spilled turning out to be real beans. DUH.

 

[Trausti]

Tell that to the mob.

Good that you admit that.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing? Does Mueller know you are talking about this case to the public? Because otherwise, how can you reach that conclusion?
You are such a good brownshirter. Even after Trump's resignation, you'll defend the man you never liked.
Or... as happens in the real world, you charge based on what you know you can get a conviction. And he could also have plenty of other things that are on the side that he'll ignore in lieu of the plea.

But kudos for trying to make people believe that Flynn lied to the FBI because of nothing at all.

It's easy to reach a conclusion that they've got nothing on Flynn; they made him a worthless witness with the perjury plea.

Yeah, Mueller is famous for overlooking that kind of glaringly obvious factor, right?
Or maybe... just ... MAYBE... he already got the goods, and his plea deal is contingent on the beans he spilled turning out to be real beans. DUH.

To whom does he spill the beans? If he testifies anywhere he's impeached before he starts.

 

[blastula]

Your mixing things up. I'm not saying he lied about Kislyak to protect his son. I'm saying he took a plea to protect his son. They both worked as unregistered foreign agents for Turkey. That's what did in Manafort.

I'm not the one who's confused. This is you just earlier today.

People lie about things all the time for no good reason.

On what factual or rational basis do you claim that people under investigation lie to FBI for no good reason?

He admitted to lying to protect his son. But nothing he did was illegal; except, perhaps, the Turkish stuff.

I'm the one who had to explain to you that he said he pled guilty for family reasons.

And you still are glossing over the lie about Kislyak which had nothing to do with his son. And tough shit if any lie was about his son anyway.

 

[Trausti]

I'm not the one who's confused. This is your just earlier today.

People lie about things all the time for no good reason.

On what factual or rational basis do you claim that people under investigation lie to FBI for no good reason?

He admitted to lying to protect his son. But nothing he did was illegal; except, perhaps, the Turkish stuff.

I'm the one who had to explain to you that he said he pled guilty for family reasons.

And you still are glossing over the lie about Kislyak which had nothing to do with his son. And tough shit if any lie was about his son anyway.

The lie about Kislyak happened before Mueller was appointed. So, yeah, had nothing to do with his son. Perhaps we're not actually in disagreement that the plea Flynn did make was to protect his family.

 

[laughing dog]

People lie about things all the time for no good reason.

On what factual or rational basis do you claim that people under investigation lie to FBI for no good reason?

He admitted to lying to protect his son.

That does not explain why he lied to the FBI in the first place.

But nothing he did was illegal; except, perhaps, the Turkish stuff.

You are factually incorrect - he lied to the FBI, which is illegal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Good that you admit that.

Curious, was or wasn't John Gotti put into prison? Weren't a few deals cut in the process? Stop being so triangle like.

 

[Elixir]

Good that you admit that.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing? Does Mueller know you are talking about this case to the public? Because otherwise, how can you reach that conclusion?
You are such a good brownshirter. Even after Trump's resignation, you'll defend the man you never liked.
Or... as happens in the real world, you charge based on what you know you can get a conviction. And he could also have plenty of other things that are on the side that he'll ignore in lieu of the plea.

But kudos for trying to make people believe that Flynn lied to the FBI because of nothing at all.

It's easy to reach a conclusion that they've got nothing on Flynn; they made him a worthless witness with the perjury plea.

Yeah, Mueller is famous for overlooking that kind of glaringly obvious factor, right?
Or maybe... just ... MAYBE... he already got the goods, and his plea deal is contingent on the beans he spilled turning out to be real beans. DUH.

To whom does he spill the beans? If he testifies anywhere he's impeached before he starts.

Just some guy named Bob. He'll probably forget all about it...
Or, he might ... just MAYBE ... work his way up the chain of fools until he nails Cheato.

 

[Copernicus]

Flynn is almost certain to face other charges, unless he turns full state's witness for Mueller. This one charge is also an admission of guilt for violating the Logan Act, but he hasn't been charged with that yet. So Mueller still holds a lot of leverage with Flynn. More importantly, he has implicated another senior official in the Trump campaign as violating the Logan Act, but the identity still remains a secret. The problem for the Trump administration, is that they don't know what Mueller knows or who among them is next. That may soften them up a little when it comes to cutting a plea deal, just like Flynn did. Flynn has pleaded guilty to a felony. Who will be next?

It is impossible to say what kind of chaos Trump will unleash as Mueller closes in on him. My guess is that he will remove Sessions and use the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 to appoint a replacement, who will then fire Rosenstein and Mueller. The trick is to find someone among his congressionally approved appointments to take on that lightning rod task. It is also possible that presidential pardons will start flying around for his family and loyalists. That would be political suicide for Trump, who would likely be impeached, but he isn't the world's greatest strategic planner. Nixon struck a deal to get himself pardoned. I don't know if Pence will be willing to do the same for Trump. He could give Trump a verbal assurance and then turn his back on him. After all, Trump himself makes those kinds of promises all the time.

Another alternative to having Rosenstein replace Sessions is that Trump could do a recess appointment when the Senate leaves for its holiday.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've been through an investigation or two in the navy for missing stuff. No one ever required "precise recollections". Then again, I suppose it's a matter of what you're forgetting. For example, loosing a few details here and there is a world apart from forgetting you put a crate of grenades.

If the military stuff is missing you need to talk to the manufacturers about improving the seeker heads!

Grenades are dangerous. I'd suggest putting them on a high shelf in an area that people don't wander around in much, like right above the engines.

He's in the Navy. All their main weapons have seeker heads.

 

[ZiprHead]

Bombshell email reveals NRA link to attempted ‘back-channel meeting’ between Trump and Putin during campaign

 

[Trausti]

Bombshell email reveals NRA link to attempted ‘back-channel meeting’ between Trump and Putin during campaign

Holy Shiiite! A presidential candidate arranged to meet with foreign leaders before an election. That never happens.

 

[laughing dog]

Bombshell email reveals NRA link to attempted ‘back-channel meeting’ between Trump and Putin during campaign

Holy Shiiite! A presidential candidate arranged to meet with foreign leaders before an election. That never happens.

It takes a special kind of "logic" to equate meeting with allies and meeting with adversaries. Perhaps you could explain how the two are the same?

 

[Elixir]

Bombshell email reveals NRA link to attempted ‘back-channel meeting’ between Trump and Putin during campaign

Holy Shiiite! A presidential candidate arranged to meet with foreign leaders before an election. That never happens.

It takes a special kind of "logic" to equate meeting with allies and meeting with adversaries. Perhaps you could explain how the two are the same?

Since it's doubtful that Trausti will rise to that challenge, I'll give it a try.
"Russia was an adversary to Clintons and that Kenyan black guy, not the United States of America. Mr. Trump is the PRESIDENT of those United States, and if he says Russia is our friend, then Russia is our friend."

Pretty close, Trausti?

 

[Trausti]

Bombshell email reveals NRA link to attempted ‘back-channel meeting’ between Trump and Putin during campaign

Holy Shiiite! A presidential candidate arranged to meet with foreign leaders before an election. That never happens.

It takes a special kind of "logic" to equate meeting with allies and meeting with adversaries. Perhaps you could explain how the two are the same?

So your theory is that the Trump campaign planned to collude with the Russians by having a high level meeting with Putin. Clever.

 

[Elixir]

It takes a special kind of "logic" to equate meeting with allies and meeting with adversaries. Perhaps you could explain how the two are the same?

So your theory is that the Trump campaign planned to collude with the Russians by having a high level meeting with Putin. Clever.

So your "theory" is that Cheato has no ulterior motive for working with Putin, just wants peace? Idiotic.

 

[blastula]

A back channel isn't illegal in itself. All their (egregiously) concealed contacts aren't illegal in themselves, but they are potentially so depending on what was communicated, and so of course the contacts raise questions. We don't have an answer yet either way on definitive collusion. But covering up the contacts can still be illegal, they don't get a free pass on false statements when there is no underlying crime. It's possible all their Russia love was only about shared business interests in Russia by many (abnormally many) in the campaign and without involving any knowing conspiracy over the election. But it also shouldn't be surprising if those interests facilitated actual conspiracy.

 

[Trausti]

It takes a special kind of "logic" to equate meeting with allies and meeting with adversaries. Perhaps you could explain how the two are the same?

So your theory is that the Trump campaign planned to collude with the Russians by having a high level meeting with Putin. Clever.

So your "theory" is that Cheato has no ulterior motive for working with Putin, just wants peace? Idiotic.

They didn't actually meet before the election, ya know.

- - - Updated - - -

A back channel isn't illegal in itself. All their (egregiously) concealed contacts aren't illegal in themselves, but they are potentially so depending on what was communicated, and so of course the contacts raise questions. We don't have an answer yet either way on definitive collusion. But covering up the contacts can still be illegal, they don't get a free pass on false statements when there is no underlying crime. It's possible all their Russia love was only about shared business interests in Russia by many (abnormally many) in the campaign and without involving any knowing conspiracy over the election. But it also shouldn't be surprising if those interests facilitated actual conspiracy.

A "back channel" would normally be the way to set up these sorts of meetings, right? Unless you're already president, that is.