Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation

Oscie said:
I'd subscribe to the theory that either Mueller has nothing on Trump or he has something(s) so explosive it'll bring end his presidency. And if it was nothing then surely nothing doesn't take this long to come out.
Click to expand...

Mueller just doesn't strike me as the type to keep going with nothing.

And then there's the fact that Trump never once tells the truth so there's no possible way in this or any other timeline whereby he's innocent of everything he's made painfully obvious he did whilst screaming that he didn't.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
It's not a great response, it's the only response and even if true it automatically admits that he hadn't got a clue about Cohen's character when he made his initial remarks.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I have changed my mind about José a number of times and it wasn't lack of information that got me there. Imo it's perfectly normal to change his mind about somebody after learning new facts even when you've known the guy for years. It doesn't imply that he hadn't got a clue at all.
 
Javi said:
Not necessarily. I have changed my mind about José a number of times and it wasn't lack of information that got me there. Imo it's perfectly normal to change his mind about somebody after learning new facts even when you've known the guy for years. It doesn't imply that he hadn't got a clue at all.
Click to expand...

Your sentences are contradictory since learning knew facts implies a previous lack of knowledge.

If it turns out my girlfriend is a multiple murderer and has been going on weekly killing sprees for several years in the pine forests of Northumberland then my gullible impression that she couldn't wield an axe and wouldn't hurt a fly certainly suggests I hadn't got a clue as to her true nature. Silly me. If this "honorable lawyer" is in fact a "pathological liar" it in turn implies likewise for the gullible Giuliani. Silly him, not a good judge of character. Not that I believe him at all since his about face is entirely explainable by political expedience.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Your sentences are contradictory since learning knew facts implies a previous lack of knowledge.

If it turns out my girlfriend is a multiple murderer and has been going on weekly killing sprees for several years in the pine forests of Northumberland then my gullible impression that she couldn't wield an axe and wouldn't hurt a fly certainly suggests I hadn't got a clue as to her true nature. Silly me. If this "honorable lawyer" is in fact a "pathological liar" it in turn implies likewise for the gullible Giuliani. Silly him, not a good judge of character. Not that I believe him at all since his about face is entirely explainable by political expedience.
Click to expand...

Obviously it's a lack of knowledge but it doesn't amount to the rather absolute idea of having no clue at all in order to suggest the assessment in the first place was bad judgement, which is what you are doing. If we'd go further your way then you either can't make an assessment of a persons character if you don't know everything or every assessment would be clueless. I'm saying there is middle ground to the question (that's not even considering the situation where new things are happening after the assessment. There isn't even a lack of knowledge involved there...)

I'd say you're a respectable user for example without having gone through your posts at all. Is that clueless? If you were to post something stupid I'd change my position though.
 
Javi said:
Obviously it's a lack of knowledge but it doesn't amount to the rather absolute idea of having no clue at all in order to suggest the assessment in the first place was bad judgement, which is what you are doing. If we'd go further your way then you either can't make an assessment of a persons character if you don't know everything or every assessment would be clueless. I'm saying there is middle ground to the question (that's not even considering the situation where new things are happening after the assessment. There isn't even a lack of knowledge involved there...)

I'd say you're a respectable user for example without having gone through your posts at all. Is that clueless? If you were to post something stupid I'd change my position though.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if it turns out your honourable lawyer is in fact a pathological liar then of course it means that you initially made a bad judgement.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I'm sorry, but if it turns out your honourable lawyer is in fact a pathological liar then of course it means that you initially made a bad judgement.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Let me know if you don't understand my argument, since I don't want to repeat myself.
 
Javi said:
It doesn't. Let me know if you don't understand my argument, since I don't want to repeat myself.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your contrarian desire to argue forlorn positions. Your argument is entirely comprehensible and in my view obviously wrong. I'm not going to go on about it because it's a minor point tangential to the thread and which I doubt anyone else wants to read. I also reckon Giuliani's lying about his motivations so it's entirely academic to me. The floor is yours.
 
Let’s just take a moment and remember that Rudy himself was supposedly also under FBI investigation over FBI NY office leaks about Hillary. We still don’t know if that investigation has finished.
 
People and the press should just start replacing the word collusion with conspiracy everywhere. Soon we ll go from "No conspiracy! " to "conspiracy is not a crime!"
 
Redplane said:
People and the press should just start replacing the word collusion with conspiracy everywhere. Soon we ll go from "No conspiracy! " to "conspiracy is not a crime!"
Click to expand...
The minute he asked the Russians to find Hillary's missing Emails and they broke into the server straight after they had him on conspiracy. It's just that once he got elected what do you do about it?
 
"...I love America so much I could not take the risk that Crooked Hillary and the Deep State might steal the election and stop my mission to #MAGA! So smart!"
 


I really do think Mueller hopes to bring impeachment with a conspiracy with a foreign adversary / obstruction of justice double in order to clear Trump to be tried as a private citizen for the more serious Trump organisation crimes.


Mueller is a straight shooter who believes in justice, I reckon he’s fiercely against the institution of POTUS being used as a get out of jail free card for a crime syndicate piece of shit like Donald Trump.
 
Great task Giuliani has before him there. First they have to find out what incriminating stuff is actually out there with only a low chance of achieving a satisfying result. Then they must figure out how to best address them and if the evidence is strong, there isn't much you can do anyway. After all of that they have to manage architecting a coherent report. In writing. Rudy's going to need a serious sabbatical after this.
 
Javi said:
Great task Giuliani has before him there. First they have to find out what incriminating stuff is actually out there with only a low chance of achieving a satisfying result. Then they must figure out how to best address them and if the evidence is strong, there isn't much you can do anyway. After all of that they have to manage architecting a coherent report. In writing. Rudy's going to need a serious sabbatical after this.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, he'll have lots of time to relax doing a few years in Rikers.
 
Javi said:
For what?
Click to expand...

He’s still a suspect himself for leaking classified FBI material relating to the Clinton investigation.

If he is indeed guilty of this, then he will have been another cog in the illegal mechanics used to hurt the Clinton campaign along with the DNC hackings and disinformation campaigns on social media.

I think a part of the reason Trump is retaining him is because the likelihood Giuliani would raided and/or his office and documents subpoenaed is high. As another Trump lawyer, Cohen, has already had the same treatment I think they’ve set themselves up in a position where they would almost dare them to raid Giuliani because the political fall out of another Trump lawyer being targeted would be huge.
 
Pexbo said:
He’s still a suspect himself for leaking classified FBI material relating to the Clinton investigation.

If he is indeed guilty of this, then he will have been another cog in the illegal mechanics used to hurt the Clinton campaign along with the DNC hackings and disinformation campaigns on social media.

I think a part of the reason Trump is retaining him is because the likelihood Giuliani would raided and/or his office and documents subpoenaed is high. As another Trump lawyer, Cohen, has already had the same treatment I think they’ve set themselves up in a position where they would almost dare them to raid Giuliani because the political fall out of another Trump lawyer being targeted would be huge.
Click to expand...

Didn't know that. But Giuliani only started to work as Trumps council in this Mueller case, right? Surely he doesn't have the baggage Cohen has.
 
Javi said:
Didn't know that. But Giuliani only started to work as Trumps council in this Mueller case, right? Surely he doesn't have the baggage Cohen has.
Click to expand...

He was an advisor to the Trump campaign in 2016. Just as Comey reopened the investigation up on Hillary, Giuliani said there was big news about to drop about her and there was no way he could have known that without it being leaked to him. Comey’s decision to be transparent rather than hide the existence of the investigation was influenced by Giuliani’s words. Comey feared the investigation being reopened was about to be leaked and feared the optics of being seen to be “covering for” Clinton.

In reality, the public had no place knowing that the investigation was open again as it did not imply guilt.
 
Pexbo said:
He was an advisor to the Trump campaign in 2016. Just as Comey reopened the investigation up on Hillary, Giuliani said there was big news about to drop about her and there was no way he could have known that without it being leaked to him. Comey’s decision to be transparent rather than hide the existence of the investigation was influenced by Giuliani’s words. Comey feared the investigation being reopened was about to be leaked and feared the optics of being seen to be “covering for” Clinton.

In reality, the public had no place knowing that the investigation was open again as it did not imply guilt.
Click to expand...

We talking about the opening of the Hillary investigation or the re-opening days before the election?
 
Javi said:
We talking about the opening of the Hillary investigation or the re-opening days before the election?
Click to expand...

Re-opening weeks before the election. It was eventually closed a few days before the election with a decision made that no further action needed to be taken, no criminal charges and only a condemnation of Clinton’s methods. The damage was long done though.
 
Pexbo said:
Re-opening weeks before the election. It was eventually closed a few days before the election with a decision made that no further action needed to be taken, no criminal charges and only a condemnation of Clinton’s methods. The damage was long done though.
Click to expand...

Going by my recollection of what Comey wrote in his book I thought it was mostly because they issued a statement earlier this summer saying closing the investigation with no charges creating an obligation to correct and the obvious danger of having a guilty Hillary in the White House with no info to the voters, since, and this was key acc. to him, FBI advisors told him they'd need at least several weeks to go through the tousands of e-mails before the elections (something they didn't have to because they suddenly had a new filter software or something). But the fear of leaking could have been a motivation too, agreed.

Edit: Would recommend the book, but I'm assuming you've read it already? ;)
 
Oscie said:
I believe what's spooking them is that they're increasingly unsure about what Mueller has. I think at one point they thought they knew but believe that if all he had on Trump is what they thought he had then it would have came out long ago. Now they're concerned that Mueller has on Trump something they don't know about which is why the attacks on Mueller have got stronger and the panic even less concealed. As Rumsfeld would say, it's not the known unknowns that concern them, it's the unknown unknowns.

I'd subscribe to the theory that either Mueller has nothing on Trump or he has something(s) so explosive it'll bring end his presidency. And if it was nothing then surely nothing doesn't take this long to come out.
Click to expand...

I think it is obvious that Mueller has something massive on Trump & he is filling in all the blanks. We are constantly three to six months behind moves that Mueller is making & learning through the media info that Mueller had months ago. I think Mueller potentially has more than one way to nail Trump & he is trying to tie up all potential loose ends or to get rid any possible ability to find a loophole. Whenever we learn all that Mueller has, the immediate schism alone will be gigantic. This is not a case that can ever go on appeal, Mueller needs to absolutely knock it out of the park with no gray areas. That takes time to ensure.
 
Carolina Red said:
Yeah, but they’ve gotta have the Senate to convict.

The impeachment system wasn’t created with political parties in mind.
Click to expand...
To actually remove him you mean. Any criminal proceedings would only begin after he leaves office. Like Nixon, I'd imagine Trump would agree to resign in exchange for no further prosecution.

And blame the libs of course.
 
shabadu84 said:
To actually remove him you mean. Any criminal proceedings would only begin after he leaves office. Like Nixon, I'd imagine Trump would agree to resign in exchange for no further prosecution.

And blame the libs of course.
Click to expand...
Yes, I say “convict” because that is the language used in Article 1 of the Constitution...
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Click to expand...

The person impeached could actually be tried and convicted twice if a criminal trial were started after removal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.