The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (5 Viewers)

[Bruce Dickinson]

But, Crooked Hillary....

There’s another line on the flowchart about “this guy over here denies it, that guy over there admitted to it, therefore this guy is innocent and that guy is guilty”

 

[Sammy3469]

Here's a question...is there any difference legally between these two statements:

Flynn's false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

and:

Through his false statements and omissions, defendant Papadopoulos impeded the FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any link or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential elevtion

Point being, did Mueller have to include "material impact" in the Flynn document to tie up the materiality component since it happened after the election?

 

[roadkill1292]

7. When you say the "request that the FBI back off Comey", are you referring to the Comey memo?  Trump completely denied that a few days ago. Don't you think it changes the story if it turns out Comey was lying and Trump never asked him to back off?  I follow this story 10% as much as you so if my facts are wrong here, my apologies.

Maybe this is the problem. From here on out, I'll give your opinions on the subject 10% as much weight as I do Tobias's.

 

[Sabertooth]

When did Allen Dershowitz become a right wing mouthpiece?  I thought he leaned left.  Now he's one of the biggest stars on Fauxnews. 

 

[Sabertooth]

Just like when the justification for Trump not divesting he myself from his business holdings was that it isn’t possible for the President to have a conflict of interest.

Yes, exactly like that.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

Tobias, at times I've engaged in trollish behavior here in this thread.  I'll admit it. I think many in this thread are hilarious, are willing to believe any negative Trump thing they read, and at times when I'm in a certain mood, or I"ve had a beer or two, I'll drop in and mock them.  I don't mean it as disrespect, because it's just one viewpoint that a particular person has on a particular issue in their life that I"m mocking, not them as an individual.  For instance, I recall heavily trolling during the time period where some in this thread were hanging on the words of Mensch and the other twitter conpsiracy theorists.  Many in here lost their minds, Mensch and the others were obviously as far out as Alex Jones and I trolled.  My apologies for that.  

As to the above post, here are my thoughts on some of what you posted.  

Please understand, the bottom line is that Trump either colluded with Russia to hack the elections, or he didn't.  So when I look at an event that happened, I try to see why it might have happened if he is guilty, or why it might have happened if he is innocent.  I feel many in here only see it from the lens of guilt. 

Then I have to put another filter on there, and that's the fact that Trump is Trump, is extremely egotistical, first came into the collective consciousness of the nation with the catch phrase "You're Fired", was a reality TV star, will say anything, etc, etc.

So here is my best attempt to look at your above things that we "know to be true" and see if they fit under the Trump is innocent lens.

1. Flynn lied - Difficult. I don't know why he lied and I don't know that anyone does but I'd like to think eventually that will come out.  Perhaps he realized that with the media fixation on Trump-Russia that he was going to be in a really bad situation.  

2. Very related to the first point. Flynn knew of the allegations of Trump-Russia collusion.  I imagine turning on CNN and having millions of people assume you're guilty of something extremely nefarious would be a difficult situation to be in, whether guilty or innocent.

3. Trump wanted better relations with Russia and that's what the conversation was about.  I suppose an incoming president shouldn't be allowed to try and calm the situation down?  After all, Russia is a superpower with enough nukes to wipe out the US.  Perhaps major sanctions were not what the Trump administration wanted?  Again, this phonecall looks completely different is Trump is guilty than if he's innocent.  If he colluded with Russia to hack the DNC, yes it's completely nefarious.  If he didn't, then it's just the case of an administration wanting good relations with a superpower and Flynn lying about it, because he knew how guilty it would look to those that were convinced of collusion.

4. Steele dossier is unproven and could look really, really bad the other way if it's false.

5. Firing of Comey looks horrible if Trump is guilty, not so horrible if he's innocent.

6. Trump's denials of Russian interference look pretty bad, imo and represent one area that I agree looks bad for Trump.  In every situation I try to decide if the actions make sense if Trump is innocent.  I suppose this one gives me the longest pause.  Maybe a guy like Trump, with no political experience, didn't want to go on record speaking out against Russia?  I don't know..that's a good one for the Trump-guilty side.

7. When you say the "request that the FBI back off Comey", are you referring to the Comey memo?  Trump completely denied that a few days ago. Don't you think it changes the story if it turns out Comey was lying and Trump never asked him to back off?  I follow this story 10% as much as you so if my facts are wrong here, my apologies.

8. Don't follow the Kushner stuff, so I"m unsure.

Gotta step away for awhile.  

This is kind of all over the place.  I think the best way to get perspective on how big this story is regardless of what Mueller ultimately concludes about Trump and charges of collusion/obstruction is to look at one specific thing. When you do that you realize how huge this story is because any one thing would be a huge story if it didn't get lost in the larger context.  That's what I tried to do with the Flynn/Kislyak/Yates bit. That's a monster story in any other administration.  That it's not a bigger story here should tell us how huge the larger story is, how deserving it is of all the media (and message board) attention regardless of Trump's culpability.

But because I can't resist, as to the bolded ... come on, man. This is like saying it changes the story of how the apple juice was spilled on the couch if it turns out that my wife is lying and my four year old is telling the truth. I guess it would, but is it really even worth discussing?

 

[rockaction]

When did Allen Dershowitz become a right wing mouthpiece?  I thought he leaned left.  Now he's one of the biggest stars on Fauxnews. 

Alan. 

 

[Ignoramus]

The investigation has already taken down his campaign manager and his national defense secretary. And his son-in-law is next.  The investigation has destroyed his inner circle and shown them all to be corrupt.  The media has nothing to do with it.  The only one with egg on their face are people, like you who continue to pretend the walls aren't closing in.  We all find it hilarious, by the way. Please don't stop.

Yeah, but what about if one is "objective" and ignores all of those facts?

 

[Sheriff Bart]

[hijack]

Corrine Brown (D), ex-congresswoman, found guilty of taking money from fake charity

GOOD.  I hope she spends the rest of her life behind bars.

[/hijack]

Five years

 

[McJose]

The fundamental error you make here is that you assume that the only reason this topic is worth discussing- and is being discussed- is if it ends in a conclusion that the President is a crook.

Here are some things we KNOW to be true:

- A top advisor to the President's campaign, transition and early days of his administration lied to the VP and the FBI about contacts with the Russian ambassador.  The administration was told he was lying and was therefore vulnerable to blackmail.  They took no action until a Washington Post report forced their hand.

- Those lies related to a discussion between that advisor and the ambassador from a country that used illegal means to attempt to sway a presidential election in favor of Trump (the advisor's boss).

- The topic of the discussion was how to undermine the government's response to their illegal efforts to sway a presidential election in favor of the man's boss.

Without question this would have been the biggest scandal of the Obama presidency.  It would have been at least the second-biggest scandal of the Bush presidency, depending on whether you consider the selling of the Iraq war a scandal.  And that is just one small part of this mess- the part directly tied to one meeting between Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador. Nothing here about the administration's many denials of contacts that we now know took place, some under oath or in official filings. Nothing about the "if it's what you say I love it" emails and meetings. Nothing about Kushner's backdoor communications. Nothing about Trump's continued denials of Russian interference despite evidence to the contrary and his public request that they hack and publish Hillary Clinton's emails. Nothing about the Steele dossier. Nothing about the request that the FBI back off Flynn, the subsequent firing of Comey and the public admission that it was motivated by a desire to kill the Russia investigation. Nothing about the fact that less than one year into the Trump administration four of his campaign's advisors have now been indicted or convicted on charges related to their interactions with Russia. And on and on and on. 

Setting all that aside, just that one Flynn story in the bullet points would be a blockbuster scandal during any other administration. If you think it doesn't matter and we're just "wishcasting" you're out of your mind.

Nope, it's the media.

 

[James Daulton]

This is kind of all over the place.  I think the best way to get perspective on how big this story is regardless of what Mueller ultimately concludes about Trump and charges of collusion/obstruction is to look at one specific thing. When you do that you realize how huge this story is because any one thing would be a huge story if it didn't get lost in the larger context.  That's what I tried to do with the Flynn/Kislyak/Yates bit. That's a monster story in any other administration.  That it's not a bigger story here should tell us how huge the larger story is, how deserving it is of all the media (and message board) attention regardless of Trump's culpability.

But because I can't resist, as to the bolded ... come on, man. This is like saying it changes the story of how the apple juice was spilled on the couch if it turns out that my wife is lying and my four year old is telling the truth. I guess it would, but is it really even worth discussing?

What person in their right mind would believe Trump over Comey?  Comey likely torpedoed Hilldog's candidacy for the buffoon we have now simply because he thought it was the right thing to do.  On one side we have a well respected law enforcement official who may have very well saddled us with Trump based on his honesty vs a man who lies so much and so often that it's actually a story when he's not lying.

WTF is wrong with these people? 

 

[Mile High]

The same people who are screaming Obama should be prosecuted for crimes he did as president are now saying Trump can't be prosecuted because he is president. Smh.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Somebody has something on him and he’s following orders?

I think it's two things:

1. Dershowitz is a hardliner on Israel, and in his views on Islam, and sees kindred spirits in the administration on that issue. I would bet many of the 24% of Jews who voted for Trump fall into this category.

2. He's angling for a potential spot on the defense team for an impeachment trial in the Senate.

 

[Koya]

I think it's two things:

1. Dershowitz is a hardliner on Israel, and in his views on Islam, and sees kindred spirits in the administration on that issue. I would bet many of the 24% of Jews who voted for Trump fall into this category.

2. He's angling for a potential spot on the defense team for an impeachment trial in the Senate.

So, self serving racist scum? Fits right in with that group.

And, in my extensive experience with hard line Zionists amd those that fall into this mode of thought, including and up to BiBi, it's racism, Anti-Arab racism as a core component and motivating factor.

 

[Biff84]

I think it's two things:

1. Dershowitz is a hardliner on Israel, and in his views on Islam, and sees kindred spirits in the administration on that issue. I would bet many of the 24% of Jews who voted for Trump fall into this category.

2. He's angling for a potential spot on the defense team for an impeachment trial in the Senate.

This may have a lot to do with it. I have some friends in the Jewish community that rejoiced when Trump won. This shocked me because they would have typically been in the women's march. Some people are single issue voters and many in the Jewish community were strongly in the Trump camp because of the expected benefit to Israel.

 

[urbanhack]

BTW - when Trump's defense jumps all the way to "The President can't Obstruct Justice" as the defense - you know that Trump actually obstructed Justice, and they are reaching for a justification.

Trump just does not give a ####.

if this is what they are running with now, why does it matter if Trump sent that tweet instead of claiming Dowd did it?

 

[mrip541]

Backed all the way to the defense that it's not illegal if the president does it. That didn't take very long. 

 

[shader]

This is kind of all over the place.  I think the best way to get perspective on how big this story is regardless of what Mueller ultimately concludes about Trump and charges of collusion/obstruction is to look at one specific thing. When you do that you realize how huge this story is because any one thing would be a huge story if it didn't get lost in the larger context.  That's what I tried to do with the Flynn/Kislyak/Yates bit. That's a monster story in any other administration.  That it's not a bigger story here should tell us how huge the larger story is, how deserving it is of all the media (and message board) attention regardless of Trump's culpability.

But because I can't resist, as to the bolded ... come on, man. This is like saying it changes the story of how the apple juice was spilled on the couch if it turns out that my wife is lying and my four year old is telling the truth. I guess it would, but is it really even worth discussing?

Look I get it.  Lying makes things bigger.  I do think that Flynn lying about the Kislyak conversations is a big story, sure.  Flynn himself said he hopes he can tell his story.  I hope he can do so.  That will possibly answer many questions because the fact he lied has raised endless questions.

It's similar to the Clinton/email thing. Clinton lied regarding the classified email investigation...an investigation which many liberals on this board openly mock.  But her lies, and the fact that she deleted 33k emails during an investigation were what blew a silly story into a major story.  

Being in IT, I personally thought and posted at the beginning that Clinton probably was innocent of anything sinister and that it was probably done to make her life easier as she's older....

But when she lied, deleted emails, and destroyed devices...it blew the story up.

I like to think that justice happens, so I imagine that Clinton in the end made some really bad decisions along the way.  BUT...her actions did make her look guilty, which is why many Republicans called for her to be locked up.  They saw those actions and assumed there was something nefarious.

In the same way, you'd like to imagine that justice will be served by Mueller and it will become apparent whether Flynn lied to cover up a nefarious plot, or whether he lied because he's human and he just panicked.

 

[massraider]

if this is what they are running with now, why does it matter if Trump sent that tweet instead of claiming Dowd did it?

Exactly.

 

[Mile High]

if this is what they are running with now, why does it matter if Trump sent that tweet instead of claiming Dowd did it?

No one fell for that one, so on to the next one.

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Guys, there were no meetings with Russia.  How many times does Trump have to say it?!!

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Good stuff here though.  80 times Trump talked about Putin

Trump would be better off just saying they're lovers as his defense IMO.

 

[Sammy3469]

So Trump's obstruction defense is that he didn't believe the WH Counsel:

he White House's chief lawyer told President Donald Trump in January he believed then-national security adviser Michael Flynn had misled the FBI and lied to Vice President Mike Pence and should be fired, a source familiar with the matter said Monday.

The description of the conversation raises new questions about what Trump knew about Flynn's situation when he urged then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn and whether anyone in the White House, including the President himself, attempted to obstruct justice. Special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russians, a probe led by Comey until Trump fired him.

White House counsel Donald McGahn told Trump that based on his conversation with then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates, he believed Flynn had not told the truth in his interview with the FBI or to Pence, the source said. McGahn did not tell the President that Flynn had violated the law in his FBI interview or was under criminal investigation, the source said.

At the time McGahn approached Trump, the White House counsel had no information beyond what Yates told him, according to the source.

A week later, McGahn was provided a transcript of what Flynn and Kislyak discussed and the conclusion was that it was inconsistent with what Pence said publicly he had been told by the national security adviser.

Despite McGahn's recommendation that Trump fire Flynn, the retired lieutenant general was kept on. Flynn was forced out in mid-February after news outlets reported about Yates' warning to McGahn.

Sounds like McGahn is in CYA mode:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/wh-lawyer-told-trump-flynn-misled-fbi-pence/index.html?sr=twCNNp120417wh-lawyer-told-trump-flynn-misled-fbi-pence1242PMVODtop&CNNPolitics=Tw

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sounds like McGahn is in CYA mode:

McGahn must really appreciate the timing of the Trump/Dowd tweet highlighting the knowledge issue. He's due to have Part II of his interview with Mueller this week.

White House counsel Donald McGahn told Trump that based on his conversation with then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates, he believed Flynn had not told the truth in his interview with the FBI or to Pence, the source said. McGahn did not tell the President that Flynn had violated the law in his FBI interview or was under criminal investigation, the source said.

So:

- Yates talked to McGahn, we know that. - However Yates testified that she did not tell McGahn that Flynn had lied to the FBI.

- Yates was supposed to present the evidence to McGahn the following Monday IIRC - but she was fired before that could happen.

- So they fired Yates to cut off formal presentation of the evidence. McGahn either surmised Flynn had lied to the FBI or got the evidence (like interview notes or a transcript) himself.

- That they are now delineating that McGahn told Trump that Flynn lied to the FBI BUT that nonetheless Trump also did not know that was a "a crime" is pretty telling.

The ice is getting thin now.

 

[Sammy3469]

McGahn must really appreciate the timing of the Trump/Dowd tweet highlighting the knowledge issue. He's due to have Part II of his interview with Mueller this week.

So:

- Yates talked to McGahn, we know that. - However Yates testified that she did not tell McGahn that Flynn had lied to the FBI.

- Yates was supposed to present the evidence to McGahn the following Monday IIRC - but she was fired before that could happen.

- So they fired Yates to cut off formal presentation of the evidence. McGahn either surmised Flynn had lied to the FBI or got the evidence (like interview notes or a transcript) himself.

- That they are now delineating that McGahn told Trump that Flynn lied to the FBI BUT that nonetheless Trump also did not know that was a "a crime" is pretty telling.

The ice is getting thin now.

- Per McGahn's CYA:

A week later, McGahn was provided a transcript of what Flynn and Kislyak discussed and the conclusion was that it was inconsistent with what Pence said publicly he had been told by the national security adviser.

- Yates said she told McGahn that Flynn was "compromised"

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We might be there. Bob might skip the foreplay and go right to the main event.

 

[Sammy3469]

We might be there. Bob might skip the foreplay and go right to the main event.

That's if you believe what McGahn is selling.  I still keep coming back to the question of why Flynn lied to the FBI when he should have known the call with Kislyak was being recorded.  

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'd bet non-trivial paychecks that Devin Nunes is biting off more than he can chew with this "holding the FBI in contempt" stuff.  It seems pretty likely he's implicated in the main investigation.

 

[Henry Ford]

Look I get it.  Lying makes things bigger.  I do think that Flynn lying about the Kislyak conversations is a big story, sure.  Flynn himself said he hopes he can tell his story.  I hope he can do so.  That will possibly answer many questions because the fact he lied has raised endless questions.

Why do you suppose he isn't doing that right now?  His plea is set.  He's all good there.  In the event that the only thing going on is his lying to the FBI, and his plea deal is in place and signed... why not tell us all right now?

 

[jonessed]

Why do you suppose he isn't doing that right now?  His plea is set.  He's all good there.  In the event that the only thing going on is his lying to the FBI, and his plea deal is in place and signed... why not tell us all right now?

I doubt it’s entirely up to him.  I imagine the FBI has a pretty tight leash on what he says publicly.

 

[Koya]

Good stuff here though.  80 times Trump talked about Putin

Trump would be better off just saying they're lovers as his defense IMO.

All thoughtfully well crafted by counsel.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's if you believe what McGahn is selling.  I still keep coming back to the question of why Flynn lied to the FBI when he should have known the call with Kislyak was being recorded.  

I have a feeling McGahn is going to be real, real honest when he has his meeting with Bob this week. And Bob can answer those questions. Maybe I'm being premature, but Team Trump is flop-sweating all over itself.

 

[Henry Ford]

I doubt it’s entirely up to him.  I imagine the FBI has a pretty tight leash on what he says publicly.

Why would the FBI have a tight leash on what he says publicly?

 

[Gr00vus]

I have a feeling McGahn is going to be real, real honest when he has his meeting with Bob this week. And Bob can answer those questions. Maybe I'm being premature, but Team Trump is flop-sweating all over itself.

I think you're being premature. Also, I'm not certain obstruction of justice is the burden of proof Mueller is running down here. I think they're on to bigger game, obstruction would just be a byproduct. I don't want this closed out until they've uncovered the whole story, wherever it leads - ending it prematurely at prosecuting the cover up is suboptimal. If our government and electoral processes have been compromised by hostile foreign agents, we need to know all of it and prosecute accordingly.

 

[jonessed]

Why would the FBI have a tight leash on what he says publicly?

Isn’t he obligated to cooperate?  I can’t imagine they would want a key witness making a lot of public statements with regard to the case.

I could be wrong though.  I’m not a legal expert.

 

[The Indestructible]

Elaine Southard @elwise44

Can Mueller report to the House and also go for criminal indictment too -at same time? No double jeopardy between being impeached & tried by Senate, and criminal trial?

Laurence Tribe‏Verified account @tribelaw

Laurence Tribe Retweeted Elaine Southard

Yes, Mueller can do both. The Constitution makes clear that double jeopardy doesn’t apply. And nothing in the Constitution tells Mueller that a sitting president must be removed before being indicted and tried on federal criminal charges. The myth to the contrary is, well, a myth

 

[Koya]

I think you're being premature. Also, I'm not certain obstruction of justice is the burden of proof Mueller is running down here. I think they're on to bigger game, obstruction would just be a byproduct. I don't want this closed out until they've uncovered the whole story, wherever it leads - ending it prematurely at prosecuting the cover up is suboptimal. If our government and electoral processes have been compromised by hostile foreign agents, we need to know all of it and prosecute accordingly.

I'd imagine Obstruction is the fall back plan... hey, if somehow we can't get the big enough fish with what they did at root, gettem for Obstruction. Like Capone and Taxes.

BTW, Trump going down on tax and fraud charges would have a sense of cosmic balance to it.

 

[Koya]

Laurence Tribe‏Verified account @tribelaw

Laurence Tribe Retweeted Elaine Southard

Yes, Mueller can do both. The Constitution makes clear that double jeopardy doesn’t apply. And nothing in the Constitution tells Mueller that a sitting president must be removed before being indicted and tried on federal criminal charges. The myth to the contrary is, well, a myth

In an ironic twist, Mueller is slow playing so he can see the appointment of a few more Conservative judges before dropping the hammer.

 

[adonis]

So, was playing some early morning old-man sport with older guys (mostly retired) and one got to talking about Trump's ultimate strategy and how this is all going according to plan and how Obama's surely going to be involved in the big reveal and that someone with Trump's kinda money doesn't get that kinda money by being a dummy.

So, plenty of folks out there think he's doing a great job and that he's got some tricks up his sleeves and that he's a smart guy who knows just what he's doing and the real bottom is going to drop out underneath hillary and obama.  Otherwise sane individuals.

 

[Gr00vus]

I'd imagine Obstruction is the fall back plan... hey, if somehow we can't get the big enough fish with what they did at root, gettem for Obstruction. Like Capone and Taxes.

BTW, Trump going down on tax and fraud charges would have a sense of cosmic balance to it.

I'm kind of with @shader in this regard - I'm not really about the punishment. I just want to know the truth. If we get the truth, then we can figure out the punishment, should any be merited. Now, if the administration does enough to prevent us finding the truth, then corrective/punitive measures would be necessary for the act of obstruction.

 

[timschochet]

I believe that Trump committed obstruction of justice but they’ll never remove him for it. He’s already denying that he ever told Comey to ease up on Flynn. So whatever the charges are, Trump will just deny deny deny, and Republicans will say we can’t be sure who’s telling the truth. 

With Watergate there was a smoking gun: the tapes. Here there will never be that kind of smoking gun. I hope I’m wrong. 

 

[adonis]

I believe that Trump committed obstruction of justice but they’ll never remove him for it. He’s already denying that he ever told Comey to ease up on Flynn. So whatever the charges are, Trump will just deny deny deny, and Republicans will say we can’t be sure who’s telling the truth. 

With Watergate there was a smoking gun: the tapes. Here there will never be that kind of smoking gun. I hope I’m wrong. 

We'll see.  He'll never stop lying...it'll have to be either hard evidence, a key witness, or a combination of all of the above to bring him down.

 

[Gr00vus]

With Watergate there was a smoking gun: the tapes. Here there will never be that kind of smoking gun. I hope I’m wrong. 

If there was wrongdoing, I find it highly unlikely, given the state of technology today and the scope of the possible impropriety, that no records exist. The only question will be whether investigators will be able to gain access to the records.

 

[Mile High]

So, was playing some early morning old-man sport with older guys (mostly retired) and one got to talking about Trump's ultimate strategy and how this is all going according to plan and how Obama's surely going to be involved in the big reveal and that someone with Trump's kinda money doesn't get that kinda money by being a dummy.

So, plenty of folks out there think he's doing a great job and that he's got some tricks up his sleeves and that he's a smart guy who knows just what he's doing and the real bottom is going to drop out underneath hillary and obama.  Otherwise sane individuals.

So he's bringing charges against people who worked for Trump to get at Clinton and Obama?

 

[Koya]

Oh, I am totally about the truth.

I also recognize that truth and legal justice are often not one and the same, sometimes disparately different.

If we see clear as day that certain folks (be it Trump himself, or Jared, Ivanka, Jr., Eric, Flynn, Pence, Manafort) are guilty of treasonous and illegal practices, but don't have a LEGAL burden of proof (maybe some evidence that we all know about is not applicable or useable in a legal framework, or other issues of who can be tried for what), I'm fine doing what cops and DAs do all the time in finding some means by which to achieve justice.

 

[Biff84]

I believe that Trump committed obstruction of justice but they’ll never remove him for it. He’s already denying that he ever told Comey to ease up on Flynn. So whatever the charges are, Trump will just deny deny deny, and Republicans will say we can’t be sure who’s telling the truth. 

With Watergate there was a smoking gun: the tapes. Here there will never be that kind of smoking gun. I hope I’m wrong. 

Mueller is working his way up to not needing tapes but that doesn't mean there isn't any. By charging the two flippers with lying to the FBI, it sends a signal that anyone who has lied to the FBI that they better start talking. Get enough people flipped and pointing the finger at Trump in different ways and there's no way people will take Trumps word over theirs.

 

[Koya]

If there was wrongdoing, I find it highly unlikely, given the state of technology today and the scope of the possible impropriety, that no records exist. The only question will be whether investigators will be able to gain access to the records.

Especially with the Stupid Watergate crew at the helm.

If Stupid Watergate is not the name of a futuremovie title, we have all failed, btw. Or subtitle: Naked Gun Π : Stupid Watergate and the Pizza Conspiracy

 

[Henry Ford]

Isn’t he obligated to cooperate?  I can’t imagine they would want a key witness making a lot of public statements with regard to the case.

I could be wrong though.  I’m not a legal expert.

Right.  That's my point.  He isn't talking because he's cooperating regarding other people.

He's cooperating because this investigation isn't ending with him lying to the FBI.  Which is why the "all you guys have is Flynn lying" talking point is a gigantic ball of idiocy.

 

[randall146]

So, was playing some early morning old-man sport with older guys (mostly retired) and one got to talking about Trump's ultimate strategy and how this is all going according to plan and how Obama's surely going to be involved in the big reveal and that someone with Trump's kinda money doesn't get that kinda money by being a dummy.

So, plenty of folks out there think he's doing a great job and that he's got some tricks up his sleeves and that he's a smart guy who knows just what he's doing and the real bottom is going to drop out underneath hillary and obama.  Otherwise sane individuals.

The widely held assumption that rich people are smart will never cease to baffle me.

I suppose that's why I'm not rich.

 

[Koya]

Mueller is working his way up to not needing tapes but that doesn't mean there isn't any. By charging the two flippers with lying to the FBI, it sends a signal that anyone who has lied to the FBI that they better start talking. Get enough people flipped and pointing the finger at Trump in different ways and there's no way people will take Trumps word over theirs.

Good point. If you work(ed) in the Trump White House and have done nothing wrong....  LOL... OMG that's too ludicrous let me compose myself...

If you work(ed) in the Trump White House and have ONLY committed crimes less than high crimes/treason and murder, please know just lying to us is going to make your life a lot worse than just coming clean.