The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (4 Viewers)

[prefontaine]

On October 30, 20 I 6, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, "Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there's anything else. Just so you know .... " 10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen. Rtskhiladze said "tapes" referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group

Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze. Cohen 9/ 12/ 18 302, at 13. Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen. Rtskhiladze 5/ l 0/ 18 302, at 7.

 

[sho nuff]

Yeah, nobody believes that.

What percentage of votes do you think Trump gets in 2020...that alone should disprove your absurd conclusion.

Nobody believes what?  What the report says?

He said what "should" happen, not what would.

I guess Id ask you...the report indicates (as workhouse pointed out) that Trump has "has a pattern of barking out orders and commands that are blatantly illegal and gets ignored or walked back by his staff.".  Is that no concerning?  That POTUS is pushing illegal acts and getting ignored by his staff on his orders?

His conclusion has nothing to do with your question.

 

[TripItUp]

The absurdity is that you would willingly vote for a person who routinely tried to break the law but was stopped from doing so by his staff either by ignoring him or convincing him not to do it. You clearly think that doesn't matter. Says far more about YOU than it does about ME.

I've never voted for Trump.  I think he's a clown.  Just like I think the Democrats' pursuit of this matter is a clown act.

I think its pretty absurd that you blindly concluded I voted for Trump.

 

[TripItUp]

Nobody believes what?  What the report says?

no, reread the post I quoted regarding conclusions about how this impacts 2020.

Americans don't care aside from those that have already decided their vote.

 

[msommer]

I read a comment suggesting that the WH engineered Assange's arrest to allow all the redactions to wikileaks stuff. Possible?

sounds tinfoilhatty

 

[snitwitch]

stopped flow of tapes from russia. not sure if there's anything else. just so you know

 

[sho nuff]

When you read the Mueller report, it becomes really clear that Trump has a pattern of barking out orders and commands that are blatantly illegal and gets ignored or walked back by his staff.

This alone should be enough for him to lose by a historically wide margin in 2020 if the Republican Party base had any sense of pride or responsibility. This is 100% disqualifying stuff.

no, reread the post I quoted regarding conclusions about how this impacts 2020.

Americans don't care aside from those that have already decided their vote.

Here it is...I read it.  His conclusion uses the word should for a reason...and opines on what he didn't claim he would lose it...I bolded both for you.

The point is the second bolded is definitely questionable (and thats being generous).

 

[Psychopav]

The previous examples of Special Counsel investigations uncovered wrongdoing. Watergate unconverted Nixon’s role. Starr uncovered Clinton’s affair and request if her to lie to investigators. The mere presence of a Special Counsel in and of itself is not the threat. It’s that they uncover the truth, and he knew he was lying about material facts, some of which we know about and others we don’t - in part because Mueller said the investigation was materially hampered by obstruction (campaigners lying, and deleting communications, in addition to Trump’s own actions).

At minimum he knew his campaign was disseminating hacked information to gain electorally, and he was obscuring the Trump Tower deal. It’s also likely there is much more he knew about, including Manafort sharing polling data with the Russian government via Kilimnik and Deripaska (whom he recently rewarded by removing his sanctions). You can pretend this President deserves to be in office after all of this, but what’s known doesn’t deserve the benefit of any doubts. To assume his actions in benefit of Russia are divorced is absurd. To assume Russia wasn’t working behind the scenes to target Americans with disinfo based on Trump’s polling data is equally so. It’s a giant pass to assume the campaign wasn’t more than complicit, which we now know they most certainly were.

I can't really comment on the rest of the opinions you've expressed here, just wanted to address your assertion that his comment that "I'm ####ed" directly proves that he had foreknowledge of the wikileaks releases or consciousness of guilt.  Your proof is internally contradictory.  That's all I'm saying.  It's fake news.  If you are right about the conclusion, you hurt your case by using this as your proof.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think this is dangerous ground. The House has to decide for themselves but politically I think it's untenable to proceed no matter what is in the report because there isn't clarity from Mueller (assuming that is true). Barr is spinning for the WH. I don't want to see Dems spin the other way. 

There’s a good portion of the report to go on now. Barr wasn’t even honest about the number of pages.

 

[timschochet]

Besides Barr and of course Trump, who else looks ridiculous today? Deven Nunes for one. All of the Republicans who wanted Adam Schiff to resign for another. 

Glenn Greenwald looks really bad. And how about Kellyanne Conway who as we speak is claiming that President Trump has been “completely exonerated!” OK Kellyanne. 

 

[Redwes25]

Please spare me the self righteousness. I heard enough of that back in 1998, the last time we went through this. Here’s what I said then: impeachment is a political action.It is not a legal action. It is not a question of right and wrong.   Right and wrong don’t apply to impeachment. It’s a contest between political sides; if your side doesn’t have enough votes you lose. 

When it comes to impeachment, “political points” are all that matters. 

Agree completely with Tim. Impeachment is ultimately a political question.  Sorry if some don't like to hear that but at the end of the day it appears Trumps fate as President will be determined at the ballot box.  

 

[sho nuff]

Besides Barr and of course Trump, who else looks ridiculous today? Deven Nunes for one. All of the Republicans who wanted Adam Schiff to resign for another. 

Glenn Greenwald looks really bad. And how about Kellyanne Conway who as we speak is claiming that President Trump has been “completely exonerated!” OK Kellyanne. 

Sarah Sanders...but she just looks like she normally does, a person paid to lie to the American people for Trump.

 

[mrip541]

Fox is describing Trump's attempts at obstruction as "White House drama."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It been said, but I think it bears repeating - I think Barr did a reasonable job with the redactions.  He should have worked with Congress to petition the courts to release the Grand Jury testimony - but otherwise, my senses are not offended by the redactions - at least in terms of the public release.

Barr deserves all the criticism he gets for injecting his views - and legal conclusions - but on the redactions, I think he did a pretty decent job.

Boy Barr looks terrible. Just awful. 

Those posts are consistent with each other, and both seem correct.

 

[adonis]

Fox is describing Trump's attempts at obstruction as "White House drama."

Like Barr's summary, not technically wrong, but it underplays the significance of the whole.

 

[ericttspikes]

When you read the Mueller report, it becomes really clear that Trump has a pattern of barking out orders and commands that are blatantly illegal and gets ignored or walked back by his staff.

This alone should be enough for him to lose by a historically wide margin in 2020 if the Republican Party base had any sense of pride or responsibility. This is 100% disqualifying stuff.

It is the same stuff that made Nielsen "resign". As awful as she was, even she couldn't figure out how to do the illegal stuff Trump wanted her to do. The real question is how much illegal stuff he's asking for IS actually getting done by other people who don't care about laws.

 

[Skoo]

no, reread the post I quoted regarding conclusions about how this impacts 2020.

Americans don't care aside from those that have already decided their vote.

Actually, Americans do care quite a bit, and Trump will lose in a landslide next year partially because of the Mueller Report.

See, I can give my opinion and act like it's some sort of objective fact too!

 

[Sinn Fein]

Trump to McGahn: "Why do you take notes? Lawyers don't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes."

McGahn said he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer" and they create a record.

Trump: "I've had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes.''

Stringer Bell:  "Is you taking notes on a criminal ####### conspiracy?"

 

[TripItUp]

Actually, Americans do care quite a bit, and Trump will lose in a landslide next year partially because of the Mueller Report.

See, I can give my opinion and act like it's some sort of objective fact too!

Thanks for your opinion, I disagree.

 

[ericttspikes]

Sarah Sanders...but she just looks like she normally does, a person paid to lie to the American people for Trump.

America's very own Baghdad Bob.

 

[prefontaine]

Towards the end of the lunch, the President brought up Corney and asked if Christie was still friendly with him.224 Christie said he was.225 The President told Christie to call Corney and tell him that the President "really like him. Tell him he's part of the team."226 At the end of the lunch, the President repeated his request that Christie reach out to Comey. 227 Christie had no intention of complying with the President's request that he contact Comey. 228 He thought the President's request was "nonsensical" and Christie did not want to put Corney in the position of having to receive such a phone call.229 Christie thought it would have been uncomfortable to pass on that message . 230

This is from 2/14/17 lunch which is hours before Trump told Comey to let the Flynn thing go. 

Did we know this already? This seems new to me but maybe I missed it. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

I knew it was a waste of time to bother replying, but I did address the ‘take a shot’ portion explicitly by outlining how Manafort/Kilimnik were in fact serving proWestern interests (Manafort in Ukraine and Kilimnik with the IRI in Moscow), not proRussian or “collusion.”  So you either can’t read words or are being disingenuous again.  

As for what ‘Mueller’s report says,’ looks like it says it had nothing to do collusion: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1118925339126845440

So yes, collusion is a complete fantasy.  It didn’t happen.  It is a straightup falsehood. 

Please read pages 6/7 of the actual report (not some portion lifted out of context and highlighted by a Greenwald groupie). Once you've done that I would to hear you explain to me how Manafort and Kilimnik meeting to "discuss the status of the Trump campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states" amidst the "continued" sharing of internal polling data both prior to and after their meeting doesn't constitute collusion by any reasonable definition of the word.

Does that amount to a criminal conspiracy? Apparently not, perhaps because as it says in the text in that tweet the SCO couldn't be sure what Kilimnik did with the data due to Manafort's credibility issues and an inability to obtain information from Kilimnik and others. Does this make collusion a "complete fantasy" and a "straightup falsehood"?  Obviously not.

ETA: Holy #### I just read more of this Aaron Mate dude's twitter thread and apparently he's still trying to argue that there's still no proof that Russia did the hacking?  Jesus. The Greenwald groupies are just as absurd, inflexible and prone to confirmation bias as the "Mueller will save us!" people they despise.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just checking in... there is too much here to even begin.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Don't Noonan reacted to this

Just for starters.

 

[bostonfred]

Please spare me the self righteousness. I heard enough of that back in 1998, the last time we went through this. Here’s what I said then: impeachment is a political action.It is not a legal action. It is not a question of right and wrong.   Right and wrong don’t apply to impeachment. It’s a contest between political sides; if your side doesn’t have enough votes you lose. 

When it comes to impeachment, “political points” are all that matters. 

I'm really angry with this line of thinking tim. 

This isn't "self righteousness".

You're arguing for appeasement.  

On the day that all of this evidence comes out, while we're talking about trump and barr controlling the narrative, you're already (and still) arguing for appeasement and giving the narrative to the president.

Change the narrative.  Don't give in to it. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I'm Trump, I definitely would not agree to participate in any debates leading up to the 2020 election that are not hosted by Fox News. In a real debate, there would be way too many things from this report to ask him about that make him look terrible.

 

[Blick]

If you care about our country, you care about the findings in this report.  Period.

This isn't political.  This is rule of law.  Does justice matter?  Do checks and balances matter?  Does the integrity of our system of government matter?

The minute the focused turned to obstruction it became political. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And how about Kellyanne Conway who as we speak is claiming that President Trump has been “completely exonerated!” OK Kellyanne. 

KA Conway was part of the Peter Smith group that was communicating with Russians.

So was a woman named Barbara Leeden who is on Sen. Grassley's judiciary staff.

 

[dkp993]

I wish other things in life were as consistent and predictable as they are here in this forum.  

The accuracy of almost anyone here ability to predict the reactions (regardless of the outcome being reacted too) has to be damn near 100%.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The minute the focused turned to obstruction it became political. 

Realistically, this is a Congressional issue now, so it's going to be political, but whether there was intent or not is purely a factual and legal issue.

 

[prefontaine]

McFarland told Priebus she did not know whether the President had directed Flynn to talk to Kislyak about sanctions, and she declined to say yes or no to the request.256 Priebus understood that McFarland was not comfortable with the President's request, and he recommended that she talk to attorneys in the White House Counsel's Office.2

McFarland then reached out to Eisenberg.258 McFarland told him that she had been fired from her job as Deputy National Security Advisor and offered the ambassadorship in Singapore but that the President and Priebus wanted a letter from her denying that the President directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak.259 Eisenberg advised McFarland not to write the requested letter.260 As documented by McFarland in a contemporaneous "Memorandum for the Record" that she wrote because she was concerned by the President's request: "Eisenberg . .. thought the requested email and letter would be a bad idea-from my side because the email would be awkward. Why would T be emailing Priebus to make a statement for the record? But it would also be a bad idea for the President because it looked as if my ambassadorial appointment was in some way a quid pro quo."261 Later that evening, Priebus stopped by McFarland's office and told her not to write the email and to forget he even mentioned it.2

 

[Thunderlips]

The absurdity is that you would willingly vote for a person who routinely tried to break the law but was stopped from doing so by his staff either by ignoring him or convincing him not to do it. You clearly think that doesn't matter. Says far more about YOU than it does about ME.

Gotta steal that one.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

Just for starters.

Somewhere in here @Maurile Tremblay posted a copy of the report that can be searched and cut/pasted.

 

[Thunderlips]

It's a waste of time in the eyes of the average American who could not care less about this crap.   And at the end of the day, those are the voters that matter.

The Dems are making the exact same mistakes they made in 2016...it's close to comical.  They can't get out of the way of their intellectual agenda/goals.

They haven't wavered from their 2018 message. That worked out well for them. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

If I'm Trump, I definitely would not agree to participate in any debates leading up to the 2020 election that are not hosted by Fox News. In a real debate, there would be way too many things from this report to ask him about that make him look terrible.

All seriousness - I wonder if this could be a debate-less general election.

And then, who would that help/hurt?

 

[[scooter]]

Don't Noonan reacted to this

Just for starters.

Keep up the good work.

The "Laughing Reaction" has become a de facto white flag.

 

[sho nuff]

All seriousness - I wonder if this could be a debate-less general election.

And then, who would that help/hurt?

In the end...I don't know.  Because its hard to imagine Trump's base caring.  I don't see a candidate in the field that Trump would look good against in an actual debate.

Or anyone for that matter.  It would be the same "wrong" type comments giving no actual information...repeating his speech talking points and not caring if they were false...and just completely looking like the lesser intelligent and knowledgeable of the two people on stage.  And it wouldn't move the needle with his base.

Would it move the needle for any undecideds?  who knows.

 

[mrip541]

All seriousness - I wonder if this could be a debate-less general election.

And then, who would that help/hurt?

I've been wondering about this. I don't think Trump could survive a debate even if it was hosted by Fox News. Would they just turn off the Dem's mic mid-sentence?

 

[timschochet]

I'm really angry with this line of thinking tim. 

This isn't "self righteousness".

You're arguing for appeasement.  

On the day that all of this evidence comes out, while we're talking about trump and barr controlling the narrative, you're already (and still) arguing for appeasement and giving the narrative to the president.

Change the narrative.  Don't give in to it. 

I’m not sure how to stress this enough: I don’t want another 4 years of Donald Trump. If you impeach him you increase the chances IMO. 

 

[[scooter]]

If I'm Trump, I definitely would not agree to participate in any debates leading up to the 2020 election that are not hosted by Fox News. In a real debate, there would be way too many things from this report to ask him about that make him look terrible.

At this point I'm not sure if a Fox News debate would be that helpful to Trump, since it would open the door for his opponent to point out his unprecedented and unsound symbiotic relationship with the network.

He might be better off if he could get Breitbart or InfoWars to host the debates. Sure, he'd still be vulnerable to claims of state-run media, but at least they'd draw devil horns on his opponent's head or something.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Somewhere in here @Maurile Tremblay posted a copy of the report that can be searched and cut/pasted.

It's not perfect. I converted it using Adobe Acrobat Pro and it made some errors (reading "Comey" as "Corney" in a few places, etc.).

Incidentally, while a searchable report should have been posted at the outset, one possible reason why it might not have been is that when you do redactions in MS Word and then print as a PDF, the redacted material can be recovered if certain other steps aren't taken. Saving to PDF as an image rather than from word processing software would avoid that problem (but also make it unsearchable and uncopyable).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here is Mueller on the decision not to subpoena Trump:

Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for his testimony. We viewed the written answers to be inadequate. But at that point, our investigation had made significant progress and had produced substantial evidence for our report. We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in finishing our investigation, against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report. As explained in Volume II, Section II.B., we determined that the substantial quantity of information we had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility, which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation.

 

[prefontaine]

Just for starters.

Somewhere in here @Maurile Tremblay posted a copy of the report that can be searched and cut/pasted.

I'm uploading as an attachment to this post a version of the PDF file that is searchable and copyable.

View attachment 2889

 

[Skoo]

I’m not sure how to stress this enough: I don’t want another 4 years of Donald Trump. If you impeach him you increase the chances IMO. 

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where getting impeached is GOOD for a sitting President, but I got nothing so far.

It's not as if there aren't something like 467 valid reasons for impeachment.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where getting impeached is GOOD for a sitting President, but I got nothing so far.

It's not as if there aren't something like 467 valid reasons for impeachment.

Yeah, the trial in the Senate would not be run by Mitch McConnell. It would be presided over by Chief Justice Roberts.

It would have real evidence and stuff. I don't see how it could possibly help Trump even though he wouldn't be removed.

 

[prefontaine]

The way in which the President communicated the request to Corney also is relevant to understanding the President's intent. When the President first learned about the FBI investigation into Flynn, he told McGahn, Bannon, and Priebus not to discuss the matter with anyone else in the White House. The next day, the President invited Corney for a one-on-one dinner against the advice of an aide who recommended that other White House officials also attend. At the dinner, the President asked Corney for " loyalty" and, at a different point in the conversation, mentioned that Flynn had judgment issues. When the President met with Corney the day after Flynn's termination- shortly after being told by Christie that firing Flynn would not end the Russia investigation-the President cleared the room, even excluding the Attorney General, so that he could again speak to Corney alone. The President's decision to meet one-on-one with Corney contravened the advice of the White House Counsel that the President should not communicate directly with the Department of Justice to avoid any appearance of interfering in law enforcement activities. And the President later denied that he cleared the room and asked Corney to " let[] Flynn go"- a denial that would have been unnecessary if he believed his request was a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

So this might as well say "the President committed Obstruction of Justice." 

 

[timschochet]

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where getting impeached is GOOD for a sitting President, but I got nothing so far.

It's not as if there aren't something like 467 valid reasons for impeachment.

It was good for Bill Clinton. His public approval rating shot up. Why? Because the public believed that although he lied, that Congress was overreaching. 

 

[bostonfred]

I’m not sure how to stress this enough: I don’t want another 4 years of Donald Trump. If you impeach him you increase the chances IMO. 

How do you help this by propagating the narrative trump and the Republicans want you to believe?

You can't blame people who don't pay attention for thinking that he shouldn't be impeached when you're actively saying not to impeach him.  

Why would you spend all this time in these threads just to become a mouthpiece for everything you disagree with?

 

[TobiasFunke]

It was good for Bill Clinton. His public approval rating shot up. Why? Because the public believed that although he lied, that Congress was overreaching. 

And yet his Vice-President lost the election less than two years later despite being the more qualified of the two candidates by far. The opposition ran on a "family values" campaign tied directly to the underlying activity associated with his impeachment.  And there was basically no movement in the House in that election, which is where you'd really expect the "Congress was overreaching" thing to show up. The Dems gained a single seat.

 

[whoknew]

Here is Mueller on the decision not to subpoena Trump:

Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for his testimony. We viewed the written answers to be inadequate. But at that point, our investigation had made significant progress and had produced substantial evidence for our report. We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in finishing our investigation, against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report. As explained in Volume II, Section II.B., we determined that the substantial quantity of information we had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility, which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation.

I believe Barr - in his press conference - said the White House "fully cooperated" with the investigation.