Quantcast
First charges filed in Mueller investigation

Forums - Politics Discussion - First charges filed in Mueller investigation

Russian Roulette "winner"?

Paul Manafort 26 45.61%
 
Michael Flynn 10 17.54%
 
Jared Kushner 3 5.26%
 
Don Jr. 2 3.51%
 
Hillary Clinton 13 22.81%
 
Tony Podesta 3 5.26%
 
Total:57

Oh my God. Are you saying that Flynn spoke with the Russians because Trump wanted to work with them to fight ISIS?

This news is amazing. I guess this proves how Trump is a Russian pet?

Oh wait... They are charging him with his past dealings and not disclosing those details. However he will testify the President directed him to reach out to enlist the assistance of the Russians to fight ISIS. I guess this proves no good deed goes unpunished?



Around the Network
Illusion said:
Trump directed Flynn to talk to the Russians? I am pretty sure that a national security adviser is supposed to talk to the Russians along with pretty much every other country on the map. Sounds like more fake news from the MSM who is getting increasingly desperate to impeach Trump before their corporate overlords lose all hope of turning the west into North Korea 2.0.

The media didn't just charge Flynn with the crime of "willfully and knowingly" making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements" to the FBI regarding conversations with Russia's ambassador.

The US Department of Justice did.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

For anyone interested, here's Flynn's Statement of Offense, containing some details on the lies he told the FBI, (which, to be clear, is why he's in this level of trouble, as generally lying to the FBI and impeding an investigation is kind of frowned upon,) and some details on the events in question. Unsurprisingly this is likely to lead to other convictions, as it provides confirmation that not only were members of Trump's transition team fully aware of contacts with Russian officials, during a time they claimed no such contacts were occurring, these contacts were actually made at the behest of members of Trump's team.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4319066-Flynn-Statement-of-Offense.html

Obviously there are omitted details from the statement, such as specific names of other individuals; this isn't because Flynn hasn't told these names to Mueller, (as his deal would require full capitulation,) but rather likely to keep the proverbial cards close to the investigation's chest. There could also be other incidents not detailed, as the purpose of the Statement is to provide enough evidence to prove that, yes, Flynn is indeed guilty of what he is confessing to. Some rumored reports are that Kushner is most likely the next rung on this particular ladder, as he was the 'senior official' mentioned in Flynn's statement, but it's unconfirmed at this time, so guess we'll just hafta wait and see.

Personally, still willing to bet they've insulated Trump so thoroughly during the whole endeavor, at best we're going to see most if not all of Trump's campaign and transition team charged, with the man himself claiming total ignorance of what said team was doing. =P (Second option being that he claims 'OHMEHGERD LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!') Even if that claim seems ridiculous, theoretically all they need to do is make sure no concrete evidence that Trump was directly involved and/or appraised of the situation surfaces, no paper trail or email chain ties him to it, and that nobody credible points a finger his way. Then he just claims his campaign and transition people did it without his approval, complains about Hillary for awhile, brags about his election win, and ultimately manages to squeeze past the worst of it.

In essence, if all instructions to make contact with Russian officials came from one or two of Trump's senior people, such as Kushner, all Trump needs to squeak through is make sure the buck stops with Kushner; that it was his idea, his plan, etc, and Trump was unaware of it happening. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant, as it would all come down to what Mueller can or can't prove.



Zanten, Doer Of The Things

Unless He Forgets In Which Case Zanten, Forgetter Of The Things

Or He Procrascinates, In Which Case Zanten, Doer Of The Things Later

Or It Involves Moving Furniture, in Which Case Zanten, F*** You.

Illusion said:
Trump directed Flynn to talk to the Russians? I am pretty sure that a national security adviser is supposed to talk to the Russians along with pretty much every other country on the map. Sounds like more fake news from the MSM who is getting increasingly desperate to impeach Trump before their corporate overlords lose all hope of turning the west into North Korea 2.0.

He did this while he was on the transition team.  He was at the time a private citizen.  It was therefore illegal for him to be dealing with foreign governments without the approval of the current (Obama) administration.  If in fact Trump ordered him to do so,  he ordered Flynn to commit a federal crime. 



Zanten said:
For anyone interested, here's Flynn's Statement of Offense, containing some details on the lies he told the FBI, (which, to be clear, is why he's in this level of trouble, as generally lying to the FBI and impeding an investigation is kind of frowned upon,) and some details on the events in question. Unsurprisingly this is likely to lead to other convictions, as it provides confirmation that not only were members of Trump's transition team fully aware of contacts with Russian officials, during a time they claimed no such contacts were occurring, these contacts were actually made at the behest of members of Trump's team.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4319066-Flynn-Statement-of-Offense.html

Obviously there are omitted details from the statement, such as specific names of other individuals; this isn't because Flynn hasn't told these names to Mueller, (as his deal would require full capitulation,) but rather likely to keep the proverbial cards close to the investigation's chest. There could also be other incidents not detailed, as the purpose of the Statement is to provide enough evidence to prove that, yes, Flynn is indeed guilty of what he is confessing to. Some rumored reports are that Kushner is most likely the next rung on this particular ladder, as he was the 'senior official' mentioned in Flynn's statement, but it's unconfirmed at this time, so guess we'll just hafta wait and see.

Personally, still willing to bet they've insulated Trump so thoroughly during the whole endeavor, at best we're going to see most if not all of Trump's campaign and transition team charged, with the man himself claiming total ignorance of what said team was doing. =P (Second option being that he claims 'OHMEHGERD LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!') Even if that claim seems ridiculous, theoretically all they need to do is make sure no concrete evidence that Trump was directly involved and/or appraised of the situation surfaces, no paper trail or email chain ties him to it, and that nobody credible points a finger his way. Then he just claims his campaign and transition people did it without his approval, complains about Hillary for awhile, brags about his election win, and ultimately manages to squeeze past the worst of it.

In essence, if all instructions to make contact with Russian officials came from one or two of Trump's senior people, such as Kushner, all Trump needs to squeak through is make sure the buck stops with Kushner; that it was his idea, his plan, etc, and Trump was unaware of it happening. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant, as it would all come down to what Mueller can or can't prove.

 That's for criminal proceedings.  But impeachment does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. 



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
Zanten said:
For anyone interested, here's Flynn's Statement of Offense, containing some details on the lies he told the FBI, (which, to be clear, is why he's in this level of trouble, as generally lying to the FBI and impeding an investigation is kind of frowned upon,) and some details on the events in question. Unsurprisingly this is likely to lead to other convictions, as it provides confirmation that not only were members of Trump's transition team fully aware of contacts with Russian officials, during a time they claimed no such contacts were occurring, these contacts were actually made at the behest of members of Trump's team.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4319066-Flynn-Statement-of-Offense.html

Obviously there are omitted details from the statement, such as specific names of other individuals; this isn't because Flynn hasn't told these names to Mueller, (as his deal would require full capitulation,) but rather likely to keep the proverbial cards close to the investigation's chest. There could also be other incidents not detailed, as the purpose of the Statement is to provide enough evidence to prove that, yes, Flynn is indeed guilty of what he is confessing to. Some rumored reports are that Kushner is most likely the next rung on this particular ladder, as he was the 'senior official' mentioned in Flynn's statement, but it's unconfirmed at this time, so guess we'll just hafta wait and see.

Personally, still willing to bet they've insulated Trump so thoroughly during the whole endeavor, at best we're going to see most if not all of Trump's campaign and transition team charged, with the man himself claiming total ignorance of what said team was doing. =P (Second option being that he claims 'OHMEHGERD LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!') Even if that claim seems ridiculous, theoretically all they need to do is make sure no concrete evidence that Trump was directly involved and/or appraised of the situation surfaces, no paper trail or email chain ties him to it, and that nobody credible points a finger his way. Then he just claims his campaign and transition people did it without his approval, complains about Hillary for awhile, brags about his election win, and ultimately manages to squeeze past the worst of it.

In essence, if all instructions to make contact with Russian officials came from one or two of Trump's senior people, such as Kushner, all Trump needs to squeak through is make sure the buck stops with Kushner; that it was his idea, his plan, etc, and Trump was unaware of it happening. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant, as it would all come down to what Mueller can or can't prove.

 That's for criminal proceedings.  But impeachment does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

Very true, though impeachment has its own challenges, as it is a rather long process with numerous steps that would require Trump to lose the support of enough Republicans;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

It's why no President has ever been successfully impeached, as even the two Presidents for whom proceedings reached their conclusion were acquitted. So even if enough weight comes down on Trump over this to get this matter through the various committees, then through the House and finally makes it to the Senate, if Trump retains enough Republican support he might just end up becoming the next President acquitted. This is even assuming the process makes it through the House without being shot down, of course.

Not saying it's impossible, but under the current political climate, it's likely to be very, very difficult.

 

EDIT: As an aside, the closest one might come to a successfully impeached President, in result, would be Richard Nixon; although Nixon chose to resign before proceedings could actually reach their conclusion, it looked very likely that if he had stood his ground, he WOULD have been impeached. Not only because of the things he had done, but because by all indications he had lost so much political favor, he had little to no chance of winning out in the Senate vote deciding his fate. The fun question is, if we were to assume something similar happened to Trump- that he lost enough political favor to make impeachment a near certainty- would he similarly opt for a face-saving measure by resigning early, or would he scream 'MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN FAKE NEWS HILLARRRRRYYYYY!" even as the Senate voted against him?

Last edited by Zanten - on 01 December 2017

Zanten, Doer Of The Things

Unless He Forgets In Which Case Zanten, Forgetter Of The Things

Or He Procrascinates, In Which Case Zanten, Doer Of The Things Later

Or It Involves Moving Furniture, in Which Case Zanten, F*** You.

Trump and his dudes can do whatever they want, you will still see almost every Republican supporting them just because they aren't able to accept they made a mistake in supporting them.



Zanten said:
JWeinCom said:

 That's for criminal proceedings.  But impeachment does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

Very true, though impeachment has its own challenges, as it is a rather long process with numerous steps that would require Trump to lose the support of enough Republicans;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

It's why no President has ever been successfully impeached, as even the two Presidents who were taken to trial over it were acquitted. So even if enough weight comes down on Trump over this to get this matter through the various committees, then through the House and finally makes it to the Senate, if Trump retains enough Republican support he might just end up becoming the next President acquitted. This is even assuming the process makes it through the House without being shot down, of course.

Not saying it's impossible, but under the current political climate, it's likely to be very, very difficult.

As soon as they pass that disaster of a tax-bill they will be done with Trump.  They rather throw him under the bus and try to stop the massive tidal wave coming for them at the end of 2018.

Tax-reforms with gimmicks like "infants in the womb get bank accounts" and "churches can now donate to political groups" along with the massive amount of money the 1% will get will be way more than enough to keep that section happy.  Specially with the religious order that is Pence taking over.

All just guesses.



  • Deadliest mass shooting by an individual in US history (10/01/2017)
  • Deadliest high school shooting in US history (02/14/2018)
  • Deadliest massacre of Jews in US history (10/27/2018)
  • Political assassination attempt of TWO former presidents(and 10+ other people)  (10/23/2018 - and beyond)
Bandorr said:
Zanten said:

Very true, though impeachment has its own challenges, as it is a rather long process with numerous steps that would require Trump to lose the support of enough Republicans;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

It's why no President has ever been successfully impeached, as even the two Presidents who were taken to trial over it were acquitted. So even if enough weight comes down on Trump over this to get this matter through the various committees, then through the House and finally makes it to the Senate, if Trump retains enough Republican support he might just end up becoming the next President acquitted. This is even assuming the process makes it through the House without being shot down, of course.

Not saying it's impossible, but under the current political climate, it's likely to be very, very difficult.

As soon as they pass that disaster of a tax-bill they will be done with Trump.  They rather throw him under the bus and try to stop the massive tidal wave coming for them at the end of 2018.

Tax-reforms with gimmicks like "infants in the womb get bank accounts" and "churches can now donate to political groups" along with the massive amount of money the 1% will get will be way more than enough to keep that section happy.  Specially with the religious order that is Pence taking over.

All just guesses.

Absolutely a possibility, though I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican Christmas list had a few more items to go.

Trump is, effectively, a lightning rod, and by dumping him the Republicans could no doubt try to absolve themselves of any responsibility in things that occurred under his term, including the things they are ACTUALLY very much responsible for. Because of Trump constantly going 'ME, ME, ME, ME, LOOKIT ME,' a lot of the attention and anger is, indeed, on him personally. This isn't a boon that's liable to show up again anytime soon, and historically having the first President to ever successfully be impeached be a Republican is going to have a cynical, political weight to it that the Republicans won't ignore. The tax plan itself is indicative of the Republicans' long-term plans, as although the cuts for those in high income brackets are permanent, those for middle and lower classes are actually temporary, set to decline and in fact increase taxes in roughly eight years, unless of course the Republicans step in to make them permanent. Which they say they will. But, let's face it, won't, especially if they think the Democrats are going to win sometime in the next eight years. =P

Pence, comparatively, is a more traditional scumbag Republican, and I'm not sure if they COULDN'T have just passed the tax plan and whatnot with Pence in the Oval Office. But unlike Trump I don't think he'd have the bizarre ability to keep everyone focused on what HE is doing, rather than what the Republicans on a whole are doing, or to take all the blame/credit upon himself. The moment they pull the impeachment card and bring in Pence, they're going to lose that smokescreen of angry tweets and unhinged behavior, and that's going to make it a lot easier to lay the blame on the doorstep of the Republicans as a whole, because Pence will be seen as a representative of the party as a whole, not just some off-the-wall lunatic who squeezed his way in.

Given how many of Trump's supporters seem to, astoundingly, support Trump HIMSELF rather than just supporting the Republican party as a whole, tossing Trump will similarly give up that magical, blame-deflecting armor he provides. People who would happily absolve Trump of things they'd criticize Obama or Clinton for are less likely to write a similarly blank cheque for Pence and Friends, especially if they perceive the impeachment as some form of betrayal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Republicans would be right in sticking with Trump. The tactic seems kind of akin to protecting your head from the rain by holding a crazed, rabid wolverine right above it. Ultimately remaining aligned with Trump could prove more damaging than getting him out of office before his term ends...

...buuuuuut the Republicans might see this as a golden opportunity to do things that would normally impact public opinion and support among certain demographics, knowing that their public approval is already in the shitter because of Trump and that sooner or later they can just turn around and point a finger at him yelling "GEE WAS THAT GUY NUTS, OR WHAT?!? PHEW, GOOD THING WE'RE WITH ALL OF YOU GUYS! REMEMBER THOSE TIMES OUR SENATORS CRITICIZED HIM ABOUT THOSE THINGS?! WE WERE ON YOUR SIDE THIS ENTIRE TIME!!"

I think the Republicans turning against Trump is an inevitability. I'm just not sure they won't squeeze the orange for all the juice it can give first, and only turn on him after he has left office via election loss or (god fucking forbid,) term limit and can no longer be of any use. =P



Zanten, Doer Of The Things

Unless He Forgets In Which Case Zanten, Forgetter Of The Things

Or He Procrascinates, In Which Case Zanten, Doer Of The Things Later

Or It Involves Moving Furniture, in Which Case Zanten, F*** You.

Zanten said:
Bandorr said:

As soon as they pass that disaster of a tax-bill they will be done with Trump.  They rather throw him under the bus and try to stop the massive tidal wave coming for them at the end of 2018.

Tax-reforms with gimmicks like "infants in the womb get bank accounts" and "churches can now donate to political groups" along with the massive amount of money the 1% will get will be way more than enough to keep that section happy.  Specially with the religious order that is Pence taking over.

All just guesses.

Absolutely a possibility, though I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican Christmas list had a few more items to go.

Trump is, effectively, a lightning rod, and by dumping him the Republicans could no doubt try to absolve themselves of any responsibility in things that occurred under his term, including the things they are ACTUALLY very much responsible for. Because of Trump constantly going 'ME, ME, ME, ME, LOOKIT ME,' a lot of the attention and anger is, indeed, on him personally. This isn't a boon that's liable to show up again anytime soon, and historically having the first President to ever successfully be impeached be a Republican is going to have a cynical, political weight to it that the Republicans won't ignore. The tax plan itself is indicative of the Republicans' long-term plans, as although the cuts for those in high income brackets are permanent, those for middle and lower classes are actually temporary, set to decline and in fact increase taxes in roughly eight years, unless of course the Republicans step in to make them permanent. Which they say they will. But, let's face it, won't, especially if they think the Democrats are going to win sometime in the next eight years. =P

Pence, comparatively, is a more traditional scumbag Republican, and I'm not sure if they COULDN'T have just passed the tax plan and whatnot with Pence in the Oval Office. But unlike Trump I don't think he'd have the bizarre ability to keep everyone focused on what HE is doing, rather than what the Republicans on a whole are doing, or to take all the blame/credit upon himself. The moment they pull the impeachment card and bring in Pence, they're going to lose that smokescreen of angry tweets and unhinged behavior, and that's going to make it a lot easier to lay the blame on the doorstep of the Republicans as a whole, because Pence will be seen as a representative of the party as a whole, not just some off-the-wall lunatic who squeezed his way in.

Given how many of Trump's supporters seem to, astoundingly, support Trump HIMSELF rather than just supporting the Republican party as a whole, tossing Trump will similarly give up that magical, blame-deflecting armor he provides. People who would happily absolve Trump of things they'd criticize Obama or Clinton for are less likely to write a similarly blank cheque for Pence and Friends, especially if they perceive the impeachment as some form of betrayal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Republicans would be right in sticking with Trump. The tactic seems kind of akin to protecting your head from the rain by holding a crazed, rabid wolverine right above it. Ultimately remaining aligned with Trump could prove more damaging than getting him out of office before his term ends...

...buuuuuut the Republicans might see this as a golden opportunity to do things that would normally impact public opinion and support among certain demographics, knowing that their public approval is already in the shitter because of Trump and that sooner or later they can just turn around and point a finger at him yelling "GEE WAS THAT GUY NUTS, OR WHAT?!? PHEW, GOOD THING WE'RE WITH ALL OF YOU GUYS! REMEMBER THOSE TIMES OUR SENATORS CRITICIZED HIM ABOUT THOSE THINGS?! WE WERE ON YOUR SIDE THIS ENTIRE TIME!!"

I think the Republicans turning against Trump is an inevitability. I'm just not sure they won't squeeze the orange for all the juice it can give first, and only turn on him after he has left office via election loss or (god fucking forbid,) term limit and can no longer be of any use. =P

Hit the nail on the head. Thats what they want to do w/ him. I think they'll dump him during the 2018 elections