The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Anastasis 23721]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, it’s not like the Trump Campaign met in a hotel room with Russian spies on how to bring down Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

 And then tried to conceal that meeting, repeatedly.

Which is totally distinct and separate issue than the "conspiracy" charged against Manafort. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

So no collusion?

[TwiceHorn 32080]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So no collusion?

There very well may be collusion.  But to use the most recent superseding indictment as evidence of it is akin to Trump saying he hasn't indicted anyone for election collusion, therefore it didn't happen.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

What would collusion look like?

[Anastasis 23721]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So no collusion?

[TwiceHorn 32080]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What would collusion look like?

I dunno, exactly, but this aint it.

[TahoeHorn 107]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What would collusion look like?

To start with, use a different word.  Say something like "fixed the election", or laundered money", or "was being blackmailed".  Be specific.  "Buying players" doesn't work.  "Paid Cam Newton $200K" works.  But it only works if Auburn paid Cam Newton or they knew about it.  "Cam Newton got $200K and Auburn must have known about it" does not work.

 

It has to be something that would make you disown your brother-in-law.  "Promised to lift sanctions in exchange for dirt on Hillary" works.  "Knew Russia wanted him to win" and was acting like Russia always does" won't work.  "Lied under oath to conceal an affair with an intern" won't work.  

[Chooky 13340]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What would collusion look like?

Imagine Jackson Pollock with explosive diarrhea squatting over a blank canvas. It won't look anything like that. 

Have you ever seen a Honduran man with a hairlip get shot out of a cannon? Because it won't look like that either. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. 

[hobbes2702 13480]

24 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What would collusion look like?

Probably something like meeting with representatives of a hostile foreign government to receive stolen information damaging to a political opponent in exchange for easing sanctions on said foreign country.

[Anastasis 23721]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Probably something like meeting with representatives of a hostile foreign government to receive stolen information damaging to a political opponent in exchange for easing sanctions on said foreign country.

Could look like that.  What about hiring a foreign operative through a screen of law firms to obtain politically damaging information from representatives and other individuals aligned with a hostile foreign government?  Would that also count? 

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Probably something like meeting with representatives of a hostile foreign government to receive stolen information damaging to a political opponent in exchange for easing sanctions on said foreign country.

That works if the Prez made the promise.  That doesn't work if Junior had the meeting and you think the Prez must have known and must have made the promise.

[hobbes2702 13480]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Could look like that.  What about hiring a foreign operative through a screen of law firms to obtain politically damaging information from representatives and other individuals aligned with a hostile foreign government?  Would that also count? 

Nope. For starters it wasn’t stolen information. You already knew that but you gotta carry the water somehow

[hobbes2702 13480]

Just now, TahoeHorn said:

That works if the Prez made the promise.  That doesn't work if Junior had the meeting and you think the Prez must have known and must have made the promise.

Fuck off troll

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Could look like that.  What about hiring a foreign operative through a screen of law firms to obtain politically damaging information from representatives and other individuals aligned with a hostile foreign government?  Would that also count? 

That probably gets you the person who did the hiring.  It won't get you the candidate if she didn't know.

[Gil Bang 26241]

5 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

That works if the Prez made the promise.  That doesn't work if Junior had the meeting and you think the Prez must have known and must have made the promise.

Just like the Auburn analogy, it's bullshit. 

If the campaign benefited, it counts.  If Cam took money to play at Auburn, he's ineligible.  Doesn't matter how the campaign benefitted or who was the bagman.   

[TwiceHorn 32080]

39 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What would collusion look like?

Well, actually, I assume it is some form Russian benefit directed toward the Trump Campaign and swinging the election, whether that benefit be money, information. or social media campaigning.  I don't think there even needs to be an explicit quid pro quo, just knowing acceptance of benefit, consideration to be determined and provided later.

Of course, for maximum benefit, there needs to be either Trumpian knowledge or a Trumpian/Nixonian cover up.

[Anastasis 23721]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Nope. For starters it wasn’t stolen information. You already knew that but you gotta carry the water somehow

If you are going to make the nature that the information was obtained the pivotal aspect, I imagine that we should ask ourselves what the parties to that meeting believed the nature of the information that was to be shared consisted of.  If we are talking about the Trump Tower meeting, the description from Goldstone was "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia", there was no indication that it was stolen information.  I don't really think that that is what you want to make the central plank of your argument, at least as it related to that meeting.  If we were talking Roger Stone, might be a hook to hang your hat on. 

FTR, I am not taking a position on the Trump tower meeting as it related to potential collusion. I am just suggesting that attempting to obtain politically damaging information from foreign sources generally, but those tied to Russia and Ukraine in particular, is not of itself something that was unique to the Trump campaign. But I will readily concede that the Trump campaign was bumbling and the Clinton campaign had much better execution.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Anastasis

[hobbes2702 13480]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If you are going to make the nature that the information was obtained the pivotal aspect, I imagine that we should ask ourselves what the parties to that meeting believed the nature of the information that was to be shared consisted of.  If we are talking about the Trump Tower meeting, the description from Goldstone was "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia", there was no indication that it was stolen information.  I don't really think that that is what you want to make the central plank of your argument, at least as it related to that meeting.  If we were talking Roger Stone, might be a hook to hang your hat on. 

FTR, I am not taking a position on the Trump tower meeting as it related to potential collusion. I am just suggesting that attempting to obtain politically damaging information from foreign sources generally, but those tied to Russia and Ukraine in particular, is not of itself something that was unique to the Trump campaign. But I will readily concede that the Trump campaign was bumbling and the Clinton campaign had much better execution.

That argument is fair if the only information we had was about the Trump Tower meeting. It’s not. You cannot say “no collusion” and just ignore everything else that happened. Can we prove that Trump knew it was stolen information?  Not based on public reports yet but we know that Stone knew in advance of release that the information was stolen and was actively coordinating with Guccifer. 

The only way it’s not collusion against the president is if Dotard didn’t know that information was stolen. If you truly believe that that meeting took place and Donald, Jr, Manafort, Kush, etc didn’t know the information was stolen, either before the meeting, during, or after, well then you’re just being obtuse.

And the equivocation that you keep making is nonsense and has been discussed as nauseum. It’s not the same and you know it’s not.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Do you guys think Trump reads these 30+ page indictments or has someone read it to him? 

[TahoeHorn 107]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Do you guys think Trump reads these 30+ page indictments or has someone read it to him? 

Neither.  He watches TV.

[Biff Tannen 46168]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Probably something like meeting with representatives of a hostile foreign government to receive stolen information damaging to a political opponent in exchange for easing sanctions on said foreign country.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

Collusion isn't defined, and neither side is ever going to agree on whether collusion occurred.

30% maybe 25% of the population that make up the core base of trump will always deny collusion because it means trump is winning and it wouldn't matter what evidence is ever presented.  Colluding with Russia makes him smart, or trump is being framed.  They would believe 2+2=5 if it meant Trump is winning.

On the other side, there is maybe 35% of the population that already thinks Trump and his campaign colluded.  They don't need any more evidence.

The middle 30% will be swayed by what else comes out.  A question is at what point will evidence start to sway them in the midterms and in 2020.

Another question is is there even a tipping point at which republicans in Congress will step up to remove him.  

[TahoeHorn 107]

30 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

That argument is fair if the only information we had was about the Trump Tower meeting. It’s not. You cannot say “no collusion” and just ignore everything else that happened. Can we prove that Trump knew it was stolen information?  Not based on public reports yet but we know that Stone knew in advance of release that the information was stolen and was actively coordinating with Guccifer. 

The only way it’s not collusion against the president is if Dotard didn’t know that information was stolen. If you truly believe that that meeting took place and Donald, Jr, Manafort, Kush, etc didn’t know the information was stolen, either before the meeting, during, or after, well then you’re just being obtuse.

And the equivocation that you keep making is nonsense and has been discussed as nauseum. It’s not the same and you know it’s not.

 

I think Peoria thinks Junior has a problem.  But the link to the Prez is not in the public domain.  For this particular charge to play in Peoria we'll need to see that Trump knew, and that he was making a trade, not just listening to vague Russian overtures.

 

If Trump goes down I doubt that this is the vehicle.  I've always been a fan of following the money.  I think he did dirty deals, and the paper trail is there.  I think what Mueller wants is somebody to make the story "come alive".  Forensic accountants with complicated flow charts of shell companies don't always work.  A co-defendant does.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I love felony Fridays.

If Trump had tweeted this a year earlier, would that be collusion?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Collusion isn't defined, and neither side is ever going to agree on whether collusion occurred.

30% maybe 25% of the population that make up the core base of trump will always deny collusion because it means trump is winning and it wouldn't matter what evidence is ever presented.  Colluding with Russia makes him smart, or trump is being framed.  They would believe 2+2=5 if it meant Trump is winning.

On the other side, there is maybe 35% of the population that already thinks Trump and his campaign colluded.  They don't need any more evidence.

The middle 30% will be swayed by what else comes out.  A question is at what point will evidence start to sway them in the midterms and in 2020.

Another question is is there even a tipping point at which republicans in Congress will step up to remove him.  

I think it's highly likely that the evidence will show that senior members of the Trump campaign were contemporaneously aware of the Russian plot to influence the US election in his favor through the release of hacked emails and online propaganda, and at minimum encouraged it. That's my definition of collusion as a political scandal.   And we're 95% of the way there based on the public evidence alone; we just need testimony from inside to link it all together.   I think it's more likely than not that Trump himself was involved, but I don't know if the evidence will be there.  And if the evidence isn't there, he shouldn't be removed.   I will accept Mueller's conclusions whichever way they point. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I think it's highly likely that the evidence will show that senior members of the Trump campaign were contemporaneously aware of the Russian plot to influence the US election in his favor through the release of hacked emails and online propaganda, and at minimum encouraged it. That's my definition of collusion as a political scandal.   And we're 95% of the way there based on the public evidence alone; we just need testimony from inside to link it all together.   I think it's more likely than not that Trump himself was involved, but I don't know if the evidence will be there.  And if the evidence isn't there, he shouldn't be removed.   I will accept Mueller's conclusions whichever way they point. 

I agree.

 

Well, I'll add "shouldn't be removed for that".  I keep coming back to the money.

Edited June 9, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Trump should be removed for obstruction alone. Fuck the collusion.

[EuroHorn 3295]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump should be removed for obstruction alone. Fuck the collusion.

Everyone should listen to your legal insights. .  Cause you post tweets and shit 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, EuroHorn said:

Everyone should listen to your legal insights. .  Cause you post tweets and shit 

Removal is a political process, not a legal one.

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

2 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Everyone should listen to your legal insights. .  Cause you post tweets and shit 

Outline why you disagree with his point 

[bolverk 30332]

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump should be removed for obstruction alone. Fuck the collusion.

[hobbes2702 13480]

7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Emoluments 

[bolverk 30332]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Emoluments 

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

19 minutes ago, bolverk said:

[Skyline 325]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I like your thesis.  I kind of enjoy some tweets for sports-related things, mostly Texas Baseball, but the rest of it drives me nuts.  Too many sound bites in society as it stands, without the 140 character sound bite machine.

They changed it to 280 characters many months ago. 

[Gatorubet 30720]

2 hours ago, Chooky said:

Imagine Jackson Pollock with explosive diarrhea squatting over a blank canvas. It won't look anything like that. 

Have you ever seen a Honduran man with a hairlip get shot out of a cannon? Because it won't look like that either. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. 

True.  But it might look like an on-fire Honduran man with a hair-lip landing on a man squatting over a shit covered canvas, only to see Mike Pence slap his Guayabera flames out, pull off his mustache, roll over, and let Donald make sweet, sweet anal love to him while he murmurs "Mother!"

[TwiceHorn 32080]

7 minutes ago, Skyline said:

They changed it to 280 characters many months ago. 

 

[triplehorn 2664]

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

The Trump Tower meeting was collusion. 

[krutov 18]

it seems like reality is slowly sinking in here.  must be hard from some of you idiots.

 

[David Dennison 19543]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Removal is a political process, not a legal one.

I really think Mueller is going to keep an indictment of the president in his back pocket until Trump is no longer president.

[krutov 18]

i am curious

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Could look like that.  What about hiring a foreign operative through a screen of law firms to obtain politically damaging information from representatives and other individuals aligned with a hostile foreign government?  Would that also count? 

what about hiring foreign operatives to act out politically damaging information so that other hired foreign operative could observe and report on it?

[krutov 18]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I really think Mueller is going to keep an indictment of the president in his back pocket until Trump is no longer president.

i really think if he had one in his back pocket he would be disbarred for misrepresenting to trump's lawyers that trump was not a target of the investigation.

[David Dennison 19543]

Just now, krutov said:

i really think if he had one in his back pocket he would be disbarred for misrepresenting to trump's lawyers that trump was not a target of the investigation.

That can change at any time during the investigation. 

 

[krutov 18]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What would collusion look like?

trump knowingly cooperating with a foreign state to commit an actual illegal act before the election.

[krutov 18]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That can change at any time during the investigation. 

 

if new evidence is discovered.

at which point mueller would have to apprise trump's lawyers of the status change or terminate interview negotiations

 

[David Dennison 19543]

Just now, krutov said:

if new evidence is discovered.

at which point mueller would have to apprise trump's lawyers of the status change or terminate interview negotiations

 

Or subpoena him.

[TwiceHorn 32080]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I really think Mueller is going to keep an indictment of the president in his back pocket until Trump is no longer president.

I don't think Mueller is sufficiently a maverick to buck current DOJ policy and provoke a constitutional crisis by indicting the President.  Or perhaps you mean that he intends or hopes to indict Trump after he leaves office, which isn't terribly plausible either as the Special Counsel investigation should be concluded before Trump leaves office, however he leaves office.

[krutov 18]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Or subpoena him.

sure.  or that.

but we are over two years into the investigation of trump campaign collusion.   mueller has been begging for an interview for months because he's finished and has nothing.  right now mueller is trying to use any coercive power he can find to "flip" cohen and manafort like the desperate amoral hack he is.  but he doesn't have an actual crime to flip them for.  he's just hoping nopt to be an even bigger buffoon than starr.

but there is no there there.

[David Dennison 19543]

Just now, krutov said:

sure.  or that.

but we are over two years into the investigation of trump campaign collusion.   mueller has been begging for an interview for months because he's finished and has nothing.  right now mueller is trying to use any coercive power he can find to "flip" cohen and manafort like the desperate amoral hack he is.  but he doesn't have an actual crime to flip them for.  he's just hoping nopt to be an even bigger buffoon than starr.

but there is no there there.

I think he has an assload of evidence of financial crimes that have nothing to do with collusion.