That's a weird unrelated assumption. If Mueller's team is telling trumps team that they won't indict because of DOJ advice and not because there's nothing to indict then a reasonable person would assume that Mueller actually has reason to believe crimes were committed.
Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Exactly, they'll just make an outline to Congress explaining their findings and, I assume, make a recommendation for impeachment. Depending on the extent of what is found, in such a case, I'd imagine his lawyers recommend him to take a deal to resign in exchange for no criminal prosecution.
That’s very likely, and yet let’s pause for a second and think about how really fecked that situation really is. In order to avoid being stripped of the presidency and locked up, a guy can just strip himself of the presidency and walk away. Despite everyone in the world knowing he’s guilty. Because supposedly that protects the integrity of the office of the presidency.
This world is fecking insane sometimes.
I’m really, really hoping that Mueller’s play is to present a case for obstruction to get him impeached and then bring out the big guns on him as a private citizen.
Exactly!
I'm sure he could refer a lifetime's worth of Trump financial crimes to the SDNY and hope he would do that but not sure he will. Or he'll hedge it to let Congress make that determination based on his recommendation.
I'm starting to think more and more that the focus for Mueller will be 1) on the conspiracy/attempted conspiracy by Team Trump (but perhaps not much from Trump himself) particularly related to the Trump Tower meeting and 2) the cover-up/obstruction actions taken by Trump himself. That will probably uncover the family's ties to illegal Russian financing and how the support for his presidency came about. I don't think Team Trump masterminded much of anything, because they're mostly fecking idiots, but were rather given the opportunity to make use of Russia's efforts by the likes of Agalarov and Goldstone. Jr/Kushner/Manafort and probably the likes of Cohen, Rohrbacher, and maybe Sessions would have been involved on that side of things.
My hope is that he’s impeached with the federal crimes referred to congress and put in an orange jump suit with the crimes leveled at him at state level.
Gah, please tell me that's a piss-take.This guy...
I gave up trying to find out at 107/
From federal crimes probably. He still has the SDNY to deal with.
This guy...
I followed this guy for a while. The sheer amount of threads was unbearable, and then he started doing ultra endurance ones. Scrolling through all of that crap requires too much patience. The rush of getting all the likes must be what prevents him just utilizing a blog.
He went to like 200 something and then ended with his PayPal. Hes just another resistance grifter along with dworkin, krassensteins, the claude guy, 20committee.
He used to have articles on HuffPost back when he was a Bernie backer, not sure if that carried on after his thing on "experimental journalism".
I followed this guy for a while. The sheer amount of threads was unbearable, and then he started doing ultra endurance ones. Scrolling through all of that crap requires too much patience. The rush of getting all the likes must be what prevents him just utilizing a blog.
Never even heard of this guy before.
Seems that Manafort and Cohen flipping to testify against Trump, followed by a Mueler interview with Trump may appear to be the final pieces in all of this.
And takes a shank in the prison shower at getting buttfecked by a very large black man.
See, I told you he might be gambling on a job with the major networks (no surprise though given his composure in front of the cameras). The Mooch would be a great pendant as well. Just don't think the concept works with 'on the left' v. 'on the right'. They should probably just be part of a recurring panel or something without the obvious side catching.
Agreed. Jon Stewart nailed it on that topic. There’s too much partisanship, it’s like every single issue has a binary opinion and which one you take is chosen for you by which side of the political spectrum you fall.
Rose: "If the president [Clinton] is asked to testify, subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury and says "No, not going to do it"."
Giuliani: "You got to do it, I mean you haven't got a choice"
Giuliani's nonsensical justification for his change in stance:
"It's very explainable, I'm talking about a subpoena for documents which doesn't take you out of your office rather than a subpoena for your person which I never even contemplated anyone would suggest"
Last edited:
Someone on Twitter suggested their show should be called "Two Yutes".
Giuliani has that face that looks like a FIFA executive.
He's the type alright.
Cuomo is some interviewer. talk about educated on stuff. fair play
I think he's the best in the business. Which can be a bad thing because those with some very odd stances can be pummelled by him so they opt out if interviews
My favourite part was at 23:50 when Rudy pointed to nothing while saying "I got the the memo right here".
Giuliani is an awesome lawyer for Trump. Both a pair of senile old wankers that change their tune five times a day.
I think you're mixing up lawyer with pundit
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-sanctions-nuclear-deal-juncker-a8358001.html
forget about Trump. this is the start of America's downfall. well played by the EU.
forget about Trump. this is the start of America's downfall. well played by the EU.
Did Guilliani's ancestors invent the Pretzel?
The name of the FBI informant is now being circulated on social media.
There are now competing stories from both the NY Times and WaPo with slightly diverging characters.
I’m sure it’s a pure coincidence that this comes just after Nunes was allowed to find out who that informant was. Why the feck is that asshole not in prison yet? His actions have been outrageous.
If sources like the FBI informant aren’t allowed protection, sources like the ones who outed them certainly shouldn’t be offered any protection.
Also the media are shit.
‘Sure, we’re not going to risk his safety, just give specific information that could narrow it down to one of maybe a handful of people. We’re so moral!’
CNN said:
‘Sure, we’re not going to risk his safety, just give specific information that could narrow it down to one of maybe a handful of people. We’re so moral!’