What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (2 Viewers)

He explained that it would not be criminal, even if it happened, for the Trump campaign to have collaborated with the Russians in an effort to get their candidate elected.

That does not make sense - at a minimum, campaign finance laws that prohibit foreign contributions.  Then if you establish a conspiracy - and a jury finds that Russia hacked the DNC - then Trump is also guilty of the underlying offense.  

But, I have been saying for a while, I think Trump's bigger concern is money laundering pre-dating his election campaign.  

 
The problem with Desrshowitz' argument (and I am a huge fan) is that in the case of impeachment, Congress decides what is a crime. 

So let's be very clear here: if President Trump is found either to have colluded with the Russians during his campaign or to have attempted to influence the investigation of possible collusion, it is justifiable for Congress to impeach him and remove him from office, on the basis of the seriousness of either action, and the fact that if either turn out to be true that he lied about them to the public. And this is true even if, as Dershowitz claims, there is no legal statue that was broken. 

Now that being said we don't know at this point  if Trump committed either of the above described actions (though if the Comey memo exists and is accurate, it certainly appears that he committed the latter one). 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He explained that it would not be criminal, even if it happened, for the Trump campaign to have collaborated with the Russians in an effort to get their candidate elected.

That does not make sense - at a minimum, campaign finance laws that prohibit foreign contributions.  Then if you establish a conspiracy - and a jury finds that Russia hacked the DNC - then Trump is also guilty of the underlying offense.  

But, I have been saying for a while, I think Trump's bigger concern is money laundering pre-dating his election campaign.  
Yup.  And even this seems to be glossing over some important stuff...

He explained that it would not be criminal, even if it happened, for the Trump campaign to have collaborated with the Russians in an effort to get their candidate elected.
Collaborated can manifest in many ways.  Some of them perfectly legal and even politically ethical.  Others not so much.  The fact that Dershowitz sees no crime (at this point) is to be expected.  It is the prospect and possibility that what we know, if true and connected just one or two layers beyond, would indeed constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.  

Dershowitz is always the contrarian, he does this for sport more than he does it for a living these days.  Although, super smart and well-versed, I've heard attorney friends describe him in so many words as one of the most unreliable legal analysts in the media.

 
Now that being said we don't know at this point  if Trump committed either of the above described actions
I really wonder about the thinking in the WH: Spicer yesterday said that Trump believed that the FBI investigation into Trump's coordination with the Russians was interfering with his relationship with the Russians. That sounds an awful lot like effecting policy at the behest of another nation in and of itself. 

 
I can't understand why. He has become a complete joke in recent years, yet you keep singing his praises.
Because I like thoughtful people. I do agree with Cobalt that at times Dershowitz tries to be contrarian and may therefore be unreliable. 

But at least this is a man who thinks, and doesn't just blurt out whatever fits his political  agenda. When Dershowitz makes an argument, I ALWAYS find myself considering it deeply, sometimes for days, before ultimately agreeing or disagreeing. That is of great value to me, and there are so few people on TV (or anywhere) that cause me to do this. 

 
Because I like thoughtful people. I do agree with Cobalt that at times Dershowitz tries to be contrarian and may therefore be unreliable. 

But at least this is a man who thinks, and doesn't just blurt out whatever fits his political  agenda. When Dershowitz makes an argument, I ALWAYS find myself considering it deeply, sometimes for days, before ultimately agreeing or disagreeing. That is of great value to me, and there are so few people on TV (or anywhere) that cause me to do this. 
I'd say you often like him BECAUSE of his contrarian takes instead of despite them :)

 
You also have Tim and Squisy and Bucky and others throwing out Nazi innuendos and other over the top arguements.  You want to characterize one side with the worst possible examples and the other side with the best.  I think both sides have issues.  
Tim and Bucky still post meaningful and thoughtful content though. Squiss is a weird duck I'll give you that  

Whataboutism doesn't work in this case I'm sorry to say. Most content and analysis is by those who are taking the story seriously. Most character assassination and deflection is by those 'defending' trump. (I put that in quotes cause they claim to not like Trum, not have voted for him or not defend him yet all they can do is yell HYSTERIA SNOWFLAKE MSM FAKE NEWS every time a real story gains some traction.)

I will say this a final time to you. This isn't left/right political gamesmanship. The 'gotcha' post by some washed up feminist to 'prove' the 'lefties' on this board are totally biased was sad because it shows you still think we are in the right vs Obama or left vs Bush modality. 

I say this as a guy who's never voted D at a national level - this is Trump vs Country. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because I like thoughtful people. I do agree with Cobalt that at times Dershowitz tries to be contrarian and may therefore be unreliable. 

But at least this is a man who thinks, and doesn't just blurt out whatever fits his political  agenda. When Dershowitz makes an argument, I ALWAYS find myself considering it deeply, sometimes for days, before ultimately agreeing or disagreeing. That is of great value to me, and there are so few people on TV (or anywhere) that cause me to do this. 
Dershowitz has become a right wing shill in recent years. Can't imagine why you would still consider him thoughtful after things like his defense of Dennis Hastert in 2015 (and there are plenty of other examples like this):

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dershowitz-Hastert-indictment-Newsmax-TV/2015/05/29/id/647617/?ns_mail_uid=80669055&ns_mail_job=1622819_05302015&s=al&dkt_nbr=ayphiyng

Dershowitz on Hastert Indictment: 'This Case Just Smells'

A federal indictment of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert for agreeing to pay $3.5 million in hush money, reportedly to keep someone quiet about past sexual misconduct, "puts the government in the position of essentially being part of the blackmail," Alan Dershowitz tells Newsmax TV.

In an interview with "Newsmax Prime" host J.D. Hayworth, the noted lawyer and author of "Terror Tunnels: The Case For Israel's Just War Against Hamas," calls the former Republican lawmaker "a victim if the story is true of extortion."

"This case just smells," Dershowitz said. "I'm shocked that a prosecutor would allow this kind of case to be brought knowing that it will reveal the secrets, that it would open doors up to things that are alleged or have occurred almost half a century ago. … This is not a case that should've been brought in federal court"

 
Because the over the top hysteria crowd seems to be the most vocal people.  As bad as Trump is, he is basically doing nothing except spinning up the beehive.  My biggest concern is how Trump handles crazies like North Korea.  But then again, it may be a blessing to take on those nuts before they get more advanced and dangerous technology.  
Oh my. Do you really believe this?

POTUS attacking the media and judiciary and IC in the first 100 days alone is frightening. 

 
You also have Tim and Squisy and Bucky and others throwing out Nazi innuendos and other over the top arguements.  You want to characterize one side with the worst possible examples and the other side with the best.  I think both sides have issues.  
:mellow:

Nazi innuendos?

I don't recall making any in recent months. I made some analogies during the campaign and I have talked about fascism since then, but of late I doubt I have made any Nazi innuendos.  

 
Come on squistion, if Dershowitz is a "right wing shill" why did he say, only last week, that Trump's giving classified intel to the Russians was the most serious charge against any President in history? Why did he campaign vigorously for Hillary Clinton? 

Is anybody else sick and tired of this litmus test for everybody? On the conservative side all moderates are called RINOS. On the liberal side the Bernie people are trying to purge all centrists. Both sides are "you're with us or against us." Nuance has become the enemy. 

 
Come on squistion, if Dershowitz is a "right wing shill" why did he say, only last week, that Trump's giving classified intel to the Russians was the most serious charge against any President in history? Why did he campaign vigorously for Hillary Clinton? 

Is anybody else sick and tired of this litmus test for everybody? On the conservative side all moderates are called RINOS. On the liberal side the Bernie people are trying to purge all centrists. Both sides are "you're with us or against us." Nuance has become the enemy. 
Yeah, tell me about it. Here is what your champion of the left said on Fox (completely ignoring the obstruction of justice issue):

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/19/alan-dershowitz-questions-russia-special-counsel-says-theres-no-crime

Dershowitz Says Special Counsel Will Help Trump: 'He's Going to Find No Crime'

Although many on the left have expressed their approval of Robert Mueller being appointed as special counsel to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Alan Dershowitz thinks Mueller could actually vindicate President Donald Trump, rather than bring about his downfall.

On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dershowitz, a legal scholar and Harvard University Law School professor, said he doesn't see a crime that necessitated the appointment of a special counsel.

He explained that it would not be criminal, even if it happened, for the Trump campaign to have collaborated with the Russians in an effort to get their candidate elected.

"That's political wrongdoing, but it's just not a crime," Dershowitz said. "Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated. And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime."

 
Yeah, tell me about it. Here is what your champion of the left said on Fox (completely ignoring the obstruction of justice issue):

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/19/alan-dershowitz-questions-russia-special-counsel-says-theres-no-crime

Dershowitz Says Special Counsel Will Help Trump: 'He's Going to Find No Crime'

Although many on the left have expressed their approval of Robert Mueller being appointed as special counsel to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Alan Dershowitz thinks Mueller could actually vindicate President Donald Trump, rather than bring about his downfall.

On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dershowitz, a legal scholar and Harvard University Law School professor, said he doesn't see a crime that necessitated the appointment of a special counsel.

He explained that it would not be criminal, even if it happened, for the Trump campaign to have collaborated with the Russians in an effort to get their candidate elected.

"That's political wrongdoing, but it's just not a crime," Dershowitz said. "Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated. And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime."
Maybe as one of the best legal minds in the country, he gave an honest opinion without regard to politics.  

 
What exactly are you so convinced they even did in our election? And where is the proof of it? And don't try that Wikileaks crap because there is plenty of evidence that says they weren't involved. 
Under oath in congressional testimony the directors of FBI, CIA, and NSA all stated unequivocally Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election. There's no question here. It's a fact. 

 
Maybe as one of the best legal minds in the country, he gave an honest opinion without regard to politics.  
Yes, I am sure that is why Tucker Carlson had him on and also explains why Dershowitz has recently become a regular Fox legal contributor.

 
Any one of a basic array of conservative virtues — intellectual humility, deference to custom, acceptance of time-honored norms — would have spared Trump the last week’s news. Yet his insistence on substituting his personal instincts for nearly 23 decades of accumulated mores encumbering — slowing down, hedging in — the American presidency is, on any conservative account, a habit of spectacular personal arrogance and public recklessness. All the norms of the presidency were conspiring to prevent him from sharing with Russia information obtained from an intelligence partner, from trying to pressure the FBI director to stop an investigation of which his own staff and, ultimately, his own campaign were targets, even from tweeting explanations of these that openly contradicted those he’d harangued his staff into peddling twelve hours before. It is entirely believable that the president did not know he was violating these norms because, being new to governing, he does not know what they are. That is the point. The issue is not that he is malign, but that he has made a self-conscious choice to reject the accumulated wisdom these norms, and the accumulated expertise with which he is surrounded, reflect.
Trump’s apologists, too, are jettisoning the conservatism in whose name they have boarded his train. The relentless litany of excuses — “But Hillary Clinton’s e-mail”; “But Barack Obama and the IRS”; “But the liberal media”; “But the leaks” — ill become their disposition. The only “but” that matters is the one preceding the statement that Donald J. Trump, not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or the liberal media, is the 45th president of the United States and currently occupies that office. The same theory of law, order, and personal responsibility without excuses that his attorney general has decided is good for petty drug offenses ought to be good for the conduct of the Oval Office, too.
Trump has inaugurated the age of Kardashians in the White House, and it will be far harder to roll that back than to undo Obamacare. There is a particular perversity in obtaining a handful of Supreme Court justices at the cost of undermining the norms of the Constitution that it will be their job to defend.
National Review

 
Yeah, tell me about it. Here is what your champion of the left said on Fox (completely ignoring the obstruction of justice issue):

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/19/alan-dershowitz-questions-russia-special-counsel-says-theres-no-crime

Dershowitz Says Special Counsel Will Help Trump: 'He's Going to Find No Crime'

Although many on the left have expressed their approval of Robert Mueller being appointed as special counsel to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Alan Dershowitz thinks Mueller could actually vindicate President Donald Trump, rather than bring about his downfall.

On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dershowitz, a legal scholar and Harvard University Law School professor, said he doesn't see a crime that necessitated the appointment of a special counsel.

He explained that it would not be criminal, even if it happened, for the Trump campaign to have collaborated with the Russians in an effort to get their candidate elected.

"That's political wrongdoing, but it's just not a crime," Dershowitz said. "Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated. And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime."
Obstruction of justice is a crime. It's the cover-up that always gets you.

 
Colbert, based on report - State Dept. intel briefers have developed a narcissim workaround to his notoriously short attention span, peppering his name in as many paragraphs as possible, insuring he reads THOSE. Pretty soon, briefings (Russian tanks in Ukraine!) will be written on his mirror.

Not all leaks are alike.

Take the *PRESSURE-GATE*, obstruction admission to Russian Spies in the Oval Office. That isn't the same kind of leak as the controversial blown Israeli intel. He is hypocritical for gleefully LOVING Wikileaks when they hurt his opponent, now the Sissy In Chief is whining about all the unfair meanies.

The leak about passing a state secret so sensitive that we hadn't even shared it with our allies is another type. Dershowitz took the Trump party line - news is fake, leaks are real (that should have been a song on Talking Heads Remain In Light). But he seemed to be ignorant of the fact that by passing it to the Russians, the intel could have found its way to the wrong people anyway, through their ally Iran. So there may have been no damage Trump himself hadn't already done. But among our allies, if Trump's growing rep as a Putin Puppet has a chilling effect on the free flow of intel, that makes ALL Americans less safe, a bipartisan risk, as it were. There was a progression in the wake of the news from Puppet apologists about NatSec intel impact from nothing > something but irrelevant > something relevant but minimal impact. To compound it, McMaster used a strange argument which was consonant with the WH overarching disinfoprop communications strategy, narrative and messaging by way of PR spin. LDB - LIE. DEFLECT. BLAME. His first damage control press conference denied things the NYTimes article hadn't claimed. Like saying, regarding the claim DT said he loves peanut butter, he did not say he hates chocolate, I was in the room, didn't happen, fake news??? WTH??? Philip Mudd was one of the top people in the FBI AND CIA and immediately said - "Stop playing us for fools!" And he tried to parse his words to hide the fact that Trump blurted out enough method (HOW) for the Russians to be able to reverse engineer sources (WHO). THAN McMaster later said Trump didn't even know the source, as if ignorance was a good thing and reassuring. Than the next morning Trump stepped on his own message anyway (recurring theme), saying he could do whatever he wanted. He can also take a dump on the OO desk, but that doesn't mean he should. WHY did he do it? Was it part of a rational and coherent foreign policy, or impulsive and out of control?

The hallmark of Trump and the tone he sets for spox, is not that they lie (all politicians do to some degree), but they spew non-fact based nonsense so easily disproved, like the baseless, ridiculous biggest inaugural crowd ever claim. Than petulantly acting out by forcing Spicer to defend the indefensible (visual evidence clearly refutes Trump's claim for any non-MAGA brainwashed), just because his boss is a narcissistic child. Same with the absurd 4 million illegal voters, because he is empty-headedly parroting some Infowars conspiracy theory. Now, little more than a 100 days into the admin., after burning through their credibility capital like an arsonist with a supercharged flame thrower, they wonder why nobody believes them. SERIOUSLY? Again, not just the lies, but the stupidity of them, and utter, absolute, total contempt for the intelligence of the American populace in expecting the stupidity would be viewed credibly.

A perfect example was the swirling vortex of a half dozen BS pretexts for firing Comey. As pointed out elsewhere (article that Comey was fired for being taller than Trump), the most rational was one of the last, that it was a cause-based termination. IF ONLY THEY HAD THOUGHT OF IT FIRST. Than Trump blurts out the real reason to Holt and Kislayak, which sounds criminally obstruction of justice motivated.

Dont get fooled by the, there's no there there rank Kremlin propaganda. There is a there there. Flynn = demonstrably *THERE*. Ds are called overwrought, but R's sound that way about the Trump/Russian coordination investigation when they say SHUT IT DOWN NOW, there is no proof. That is sort of what an investigation is for. There was just news that the Trump campaign had 18 undisclosed Russian contacts, and that is just what we know about. As Steven Hall noted (ran CIA Russian Operations), this is why investigations are important. It is delusional to willfully ignore a pattern of Kremlin-y weirdoness in the Trump campaign and admin. inner circle. Manafort was on the take for Putin in the Ukraine and probably is getting sent up for Russian Mafia money laundering. Flynn lied about Kislayak and talking about lifting sanctions and was caught ON TRANSCRIPT. Sessions lied (perjured?) about undisclosed visits with Russians, recused/usrecused than was complicit in the COMEY-GATE obstruction. And what business would an AG have with the Russians in the first place? R's have permission to employ critical thinking with their brain. Kushner lied about Russian contacts and never should have received a clearance except for nepotism. Now he is a "person of interest" in one of the ongoing investigations (FBI?), extending the Russian scandal and controversy directly into the WH. Nunes obstructed the House Intel Committee investigation with the idiotic charade where the WH gave him intel to pretend to give to them. Trump fired Comey and admitted it was to stop the investigation, textbook obstruction.

Michael Hayden is a former CIA/NSA Director, far from a lib#### snowflake meltdown, correctly warned against Trump's worst authoritarian impulses dating back to last Summer as a spokesperson for the co-signed TRUMP IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER circulated letter. Fareed Zakaria has called Trump a master of BS, and a recent Boy Who Cried Wolf Administration article had an intriguing and provocative premise that the same signature trait that fueled his rise (see Birtherism - BS) could become the agent of his demise. Few believe him or his spox anymore, and how can they be blamed for the serial pathological pattern of lies of the admin.?

Approaching 100% of Trump's problems are of the self-inflicted/self-destructive kind. Despite all the venom directed at him, Obama tried to help Trump by warning against Flynn and was ignored. Yates warned them and it was ignored for 18 days, and only than because the WaPo story broke. For all we know, Flynn would still be in the WH as an asset so compromised the Russian spies bragged about him, presenting a security risk to 300+ million Americans. That is unconscionable and monstrous whether due to heinous judgement or the Malignant NPD, fragile ego failure to ever admit mistake. 

Assange is a Putin Puppet and WL is a Kremlin front and mouthpiece. Anybody who doubts it is challenged to find examples criticizing Putin's Balkan incursions, disruption of US/Euro elections and murdering journalists/dissidents. Does anybody think if he spoke the truth in Russia he wouldn't be vulnerable to a Mocha Poloniumcino or slipping on a banana peel out an open fourth floor window?

We must do whatever Putin wants no matter what is rank Kremlin propaganda. A non-negotiable minimum standard of discussing changes going forward is to stop hybrid warfare "little green men" paramilitary incursions of adjacent countries, stop hacking elections and murdering political opponents. The hold hands and fight ISIS together for freedom is more BS. You can tell because Mattis (maybe the single greatest gift of the admin.) and McMaster have to frequently correct Trump's ignorant or compromised Putin Puppet views. They have used precision guided munitions on hospitals, killing the sick, elderly, women and children, and are one of the biggest causes of the catastrophic Syrian refugee crisis tragedy. That serves their goals in further destabilizing Euro politics, nurturing hateful populist ethnonationalist movements as a political wedge to shatter NATO unity.

Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame on the bombshell news that Deputy AG Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Mueller to investigate Trump Russian coordination to interfere/influence election (paraphrased) - America can rejoice, the tyrant has been restrained, the rule of law has been restored.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Under oath in congressional testimony the directors of FBI, CIA, and NSA all stated unequivocally Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election. There's no question here. It's a fact. 
And with that post our hero sent the troll William Munny back to his hovel. Knowing the troll would not be truly defeated without the Knight Sir Joe Bryant once and for all defeating him, our hero took some solace that for at least a short while the villagers would live in peace.

 
Hannity should just cut out the propaganda middle man (Assange) about the Rich conspiracy and ask Putin DIRECTLY what he thinks, straight from the hostile foreign power spy's mouth? I heard Mike C. thinks the assassin could be part of the Comet Pizza delivery team (but don't question him or the evil rape denialist will cowardly dox/smear others as pedophiles, it's *A THING* with the admitted troll provocateur who pleaded down from rape to felony assault - easy to see why he admires alleged serial sexual assaulter Donald "You can do it when you're a star, they let you do ANYTHING" Trump, they both have a problem with projection). Inquiring minds want to know.

Trump spox/surrogate limited tool kit:

LIE - NYTimes said he likes peanut butter, but he never said he hates chocolate - McMaster spin on blown Israeli intel to RUSSIAN SPY MASTERS (i.e. - controllers?) IN THE OVAL OFIFICE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTENSELY SCRUTIZED KREMLINGATE INVESTIGATION!!

DEFLECT - Trump can take a dump on the OO desk if I want to (trivial point taken, but *SHOULD* he, what is the strategic objective or tactical advantage of smearing feces on himself?)

BLAME- OBAMACLINTONCOMEY's (TM) fault, Birtherism something something Benghazi something something Grandstander something something.   :lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"In the Oval Office on May 10, Mr. Trump joked that he seemed to be the only person who had not met Mr. Kislyak, according to the American official reading the document. And while Mr. Trump played down his ***personal concern about the fighting in Ukraine, according to the official, the president said American ****critics cared about the issue and asked the Russians to help resolve the dispute. Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine are clashing with the country’s military."

- Another piece of the Lavrov meeting - Trump basically pleaded disinterest in Ukraine, but mentions the issue on behalf of critics, and asks Russia to "help."

Link.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well if the WH is taking steps to defend them, someone is likely taking steps to bring them.
When I was watching CNN (fake news) the other day they had alot of discussion surrounding the appointment of Mueller as Special Counsel. Initially I was pretty psyched that Rosenstein did the right thing and someone was going to pick up where Comey left off in an independent manner. Then I heard all the analysis that said these investigations usually take YEARs before anything is resolved and that Mueller was a stickler for keeping everything close to the vest. It really started to seem like it may actually turn into an opportunity for Trump to stretch this thing out for years. Of course he's too dumb to keep his mouth shut and continually makes the wrong move and exacerbates the issue. He's doing his best to make this come to a head sooner than later. I LOL'd the other day when Axlerod basically said the same thing, Trump just can't shut up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They could also be privy to the subpoenaed FinCEN material (forgot if Graham or Burr/Warner requested that?). 

Aside from extant obstruction of justice problems and potential treason, ANY kind of money laundering or other racketeering type criminal background issues would obviously and instantly torpedo the current Oval Office resident.

 
When I was watching CNN (fake news) the other day they had alot of discussion surrounding the appointment of Mueller as Special Counsel. Initially I was pretty psyched that Rosenstein did the right thing and someone was going to pick up where Comey left off in an independent manner. Then I heard all the analysis that said these investigations usually take YEARs before anything is resolved and that Mueller was a stickler for keeping everything close to the vest. It really started to seem like it may actually turn into an opportunity for Trump to stretch this think out for years. If course he's too dumb to keep his mouth shut and continually makes the wrong move and exacerbates the issue. He's doing his best to make this come to head sooner than later. I LOL'd the other when Axlerod basically said the same thing, Trump can't just shut up.
Right I also heard Trump surrogates try to spin it this way, however prior SP situations may likely be different because 1. well facts, 2. Magnitude of allegations, and 3. Trump, who has already greatly accelerated things and exacerbated his own situation. We already know intellectually and emotionally he isn't in the same conversation as those prior presidents facing SP's, whatever we may think of them.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top