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 (12 Viewers)

gianmarco said:
All I can say at this point is that Russia has completely owned us. Played us like a fiddle.

Infiltrated our democratic process by exploiting its weaknesses and wreaked havoc that will have long lasting effects and will take lots of time, work, and money to undo.

I hope all those involved from our country rot in hell for taking part and/or allowing it to happen.
Click to expand...
Not really.  People voted for Trump and Trump won.  That's democracy.  :shrug:  

 
David Frum‏Verified account @davidfrum

"NO COLLUSION!" about to morph into "Donald Trump was not personally aware at the time of his campaign manager's confessed collusion"

8:27 AM - 9 Jan 2019

 
goal post update:

1. we don't know if the Russians hacked and if they wanted Trump to win

2. they may have hacked but I have no contacts, no business arrangements, my campaign had no contacts with Russians

3. well a couple people may have had contacts with Russians but was about helping Russian babies

4. well we may have had secret meetings to get dirt on Hillary but nothing happened

5. well there may have been dozens of meetings between nearly every member of the campaign (that every one of them lied about) and Russians it was all very normal, cool and legal 

6. well there was an agreement to build Trump Moscow but the discussions ended in the beginning of 2016 

7. well the Trump Moscow talks continued until the summer of 2016

8.  well the Trump Moscow talks continued all the way up to the election but everyone knew it and it's completely normal to secretly discuss building a  project to make hundreds of millions and lie about it for 2 years with the same counterparty that is hacking DNC / voting systems and undergoing a massive social media disinformation campaign

9. NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, 

10.  Collusion isn't a crime and are crimes really crimes?

11. well there may have been collusion by the campaign manager during the campaign but Trump didn't know about it

12.  ......(I can fill in the blanks..)

 
Banger said:
goal post update:

1. we don't know if the Russians hacked and if they wanted Trump to win

2. they may have hacked but I have no contacts, no business arrangements, my campaign had no contacts with Russians

3. well a couple people may have had contacts with Russians but was about helping Russian babies

4. well we may have had secret meetings to get dirt on Hillary but nothing happened

5. well there may have been dozens of meetings between nearly every member of the campaign (that every one of them lied about) and Russians it was all very normal, cool and legal 

6. well there was an agreement to build Trump Moscow but the discussions ended in the beginning of 2016 

7. well the Trump Moscow talks continued until the summer of 2016

8.  well the Trump Moscow talks continued all the way up to the election but everyone knew it and it's completely normal to secretly discuss building a  project to make hundreds of millions and lie about it for 2 years with the same counterparty that is hacking DNC / voting systems and undergoing a massive social media disinformation campaign

9. NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, NO COLLUSION!, 

10.  Collusion isn't a crime and are crimes really crimes?

11. well there may have been collusion by the campaign manager during the campaign but Trump didn't know about it

12.  ......(I can fill in the blanks..)
Click to expand...
I feel like “there was collusion by the campaign manager but the candidate didn’t know about it” is pretty much the end of the goalposts moving. Beyond “you can’t indict a sitting President” I’m not really sure where to go from there. 

 
Henry Ford said:
I feel like “there was collusion by the campaign manager but the candidate didn’t know about it” is pretty much the end of the goalposts moving. Beyond “you can’t indict a sitting President” I’m not really sure where to go from there. 
Click to expand...
well the President knew about and directed the Russian involvement.  He made an agreement where the Russians would provide money and hacking services in exchange for sanction relief, he also made secret business deals where the Russians would enrich he and his family by building the largest project in their history but all of this was done because the alternative was HILLARY so it's acceptable.

 
i have a few legitimate questions for you laywer guys 1 is the firm representing montafort respected and well known 2 i assume they must file redacted stuff with some regulariyt if they are and 3 if that is the case then how in the heck can they have blown this and basically told the whole story to everyone none of that makes sense to me it would be like me dumping oil in to a gas tank when i know full damn well where it goes just crazy take that to the thanks for your thoughts bank bromigos 

 
Henry Ford said:
I feel like “there was collusion by the campaign manager but the candidate didn’t know about it” is pretty much the end of the goalposts moving. Beyond “you can’t indict a sitting President” I’m not really sure where to go from there. 
Click to expand...
I colluded to save you from Hillary, and id do it again! If that's a crime the laws need to be changed. Very unfair! MAGA!!!!!

 
SWC said:
i have a few legitimate questions for you laywer guys 1 is the firm representing montafort respected and well known 2 i assume they must file redacted stuff with some regulariyt if they are and 3 if that is the case then how in the heck can they have blown this and basically told the whole story to everyone none of that makes sense to me it would be like me dumping oil in to a gas tank when i know full damn well where it goes just crazy take that to the thanks for your thoughts bank bromigos 
Click to expand...
Most law firms don’t file a lot of redactions.  Those that do rely on their support staff like secretaries and paralegals, not the old guard lawyers.  Maybe two lawyers I know over the age of 50 personally know how to redact properly for federal court.  

Most cases you just wouldn’t get caught - nobody’s checking.  

 
timschochet said:
Even if Trump didn’t know about the collusion while it was taking place, if he attempted to obstruct justice afterwards, isn’t that just like Watergate? 
Click to expand...
absolutely...but they can already draw the lines to between wiki and his comments so he's part of the real time conspiracy.

which is why the R's were trotting out spin that it's not a crime to receive info from Wiki.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
I feel like “there was collusion by the campaign manager but the candidate didn’t know about it” is pretty much the end of the goalposts moving. Beyond “you can’t indict a sitting President” I’m not really sure where to go from there. 
Click to expand...
Orrin Hatch already said it: “I don’t care. He’s doing a great job.” 

 
timschochet said:
Even if Trump didn’t know about the collusion while it was taking place, if he attempted to obstruct justice afterwards, isn’t that just like Watergate? 
Click to expand...
Yup, exactly like Watergate.

Except for the part where Watergate was about a single hotel break-in executed by a couple bumbling idiots hoping to help their preferred candidate win because they thought he was good for America, and this is about a systemic attack by a foreign adversary hoping to help their preferred candidate win because they think he is bad for America.  That part is different.  Same basic crime, different scope.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yup, exactly like Watergate.

Except for the part where Watergate was about a single hotel break-in executed by a couple bumbling idiots hoping to help their preferred candidate win because they thought he was good for America, and this is about a systemic attack by a foreign adversary hoping to help their preferred candidate win because they think he is bad for America.  That part is different.  Same basic crime, different scope.
Click to expand...
The other difference is that Nixon’s obstruction was concealed, and only revealed when the tapes were released. Trump’s obstruction has been open for everyone to see. Somehow that has protected him in a weird way...

 
whoknew said:
Wait - we are all just ok with the NSA tracking our travel and getting on our phones while in flight?
Click to expand...
People don't know what they don't know.  I haven't read a TOS agreement with any of the major carriers in this country in a really long time or a TOS for connecting to wifi, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if a clause isn't in there addressing this.

Not saying it's right....just saying people don't really think about it until it's brought to their attention.  And when they do think about it they usually get as far as "well....whatya gonna do?!"

 
Henry Ford said:
I feel like “there was collusion by the campaign manager but the candidate didn’t know about it” is pretty much the end of the goalposts moving. Beyond “you can’t indict a sitting President” I’m not really sure where to go from there. 
Click to expand...
"Trump only directed his staff to work with the Russians during the campaign, because he loves each and every one of you.  And, if loving Americans is a crime, we might as well surrender to Russia now."

 
SWC said:
i have a few legitimate questions for you laywer guys 1 is the firm representing montafort respected and well known 2 i assume they must file redacted stuff with some regulariyt if they are and 3 if that is the case then how in the heck can they have blown this and basically told the whole story to everyone none of that makes sense to me it would be like me dumping oil in to a gas tank when i know full damn well where it goes just crazy take that to the thanks for your thoughts bank bromigos 
Click to expand...
This is a mistake that any first year associate would know to avoid and how to avoid.  But as @Henry Ford said, most older lawyers don't actually redact and file documents with the court (they rely on staff), so this isn't all that unsurprising.  I do think there is a question whether Manafort's lawyers satisfied their ethical duty of "competent" representation.  As technology advances, I believe some courts are saying that lawyers have an ethical duty to keep up with technology in order to provide competent representation to their clients.    

Also, the improper redactions shouldn't affect Manafort from a legal standpoint.  The court and opposing counsel would see the unredacted version, so its not like any new information was revealed to them that shouldn't have been.  The information was revealed to the public, but it seems unlikely that that revelation would expose Manafort to any liability that he wasn't already exposed to.  The improper redactions do, however, make Manafort's lawyers look incredibly incompetent.  This mistake is easily avoided and should have been avoided.  

 
timschochet said:
Even if Trump didn’t know about the collusion while it was taking place, if he attempted to obstruct justice afterwards, isn’t that just like Watergate? 
Click to expand...
The Watergate comp is interesting in the charges and the idea that a President could be indicted, which apparently the DOJ roadmap originally contemplated could be done.

The facts are wildly different, the acts of Trump are far greater in number and magnitude, but one thing to remember is that one of the charges was lying to the American people.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
Of course you guys are assuming the poor redaction was a "mistake", rather than intentional...
Click to expand...
Maybe, but any reason to believe the Manafort/Trump legal teams cut off communication they admitted was happening? Now that Manafort has had his deal tossed, what would be the benefit to stop info sharing? Seems more likely Trump knows a lot, which precipitated the 'collusion is not a crime' argument.

 
Team Trump is staffing up.

The strategy to strongly assert the president’s executive privilege on both fronts is being developed under newly arrived White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who has hired 17 lawyers in recent weeks to help in the effort.

...

In preparation for the looming legal battles, Cipollone has been beefing up the White House Counsel’s Office, which was down to fewer than 20 lawyers late last year, compared with 40 to 50 in past administrations. Four of the five deputies under previous White House counsel Donald McGahn had left the office, The Washington Post reported last year.

Since his arrival in December, Cipollone has increased the staff to roughly 35 lawyers and aims to bolster the ranks to 40 in the coming weeks, administration officials said. He also hired three deputies, all with extensive experience in past Republican White Houses and the Justice Department.

...

Trump’s lawyers have noted that the Obama White House also zealously defended executive privilege, including when it resisted sharing the president’s correspondence with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as part of a House investigation.

At the time, one of Cipollone’s new deputies expressed support for that stance.

“Executive privilege is not a partisan issue,” wrote Mike Purpura, at the time a lawyer in private practice. “It’s important to protect the principle of allowing the president to receive candid, full, frank advice from his top advisers without fear that those deliberations and communications will become public.”

Purpura, who also served in the White House Counsel’s Office under President George W. Bush, previously worked as a top Justice Department official and a federal prosecutor in Manhattan and Hawaii.

Another new White House counsel deputy, Patrick Philbin, who worked with Cipollone at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, played a role in a famous legal showdown in the Bush administration over secret surveillance of Americans. As a senior staffer for then-Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, Philbin joined Comey in rushing to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital bedside in 2004 as part of an effort to block a surveillance program they considered legally dubious.

A third new deputy White House counsel, Kate Comerford Todd, was a senior attorney at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s litigation center and previously worked as an associate White House counsel in the George W. Bush administration.

They join John Eisenberg, a national security expert who has served as a deputy in the counsel’s office since Trump took office.
Click to expand...

 
BigJim® said:
Maybe, but any reason to believe the Manafort/Trump legal teams cut off communication they admitted was happening? Now that Manafort has had his deal tossed, what would be the benefit to stop info sharing? Seems more likely Trump knows a lot, which precipitated the 'collusion is not a crime' argument.
Click to expand...
If they think they are being surveilled, and that disclosing certain information privately might be considered "obstruction of justice", then making the same disclosure "publicly" in a poorly redacted filing in court would be less likely to draw charges...and f they want to signal to others in Russia or the Ukraine, this would also be effective. 

I did note that the attorneys were quick to clarify the Manafort meeting, and the timing.  If this was really a mistake, I would have expected a no-comment.

 
Sinn Fein said:
If they think they are being surveilled, and that disclosing certain information privately might be considered "obstruction of justice", then making the same disclosure "publicly" in a poorly redacted filing in court would be less likely to draw charges...and f they want to signal to others in Russia or the Ukraine, this would also be effective. 

I did note that the attorneys were quick to clarify the Manafort meeting, and the timing.  If this was really a mistake, I would have expected a no-comment.
Click to expand...
of course he's being surveilled...he was already charged with witness tampering WHILE HE WAS IN JAIL...the guy is a lying criminal and Mueller knows it.

 
Sinn Fein said:
If they think they are being surveilled, and that disclosing certain information privately might be considered "obstruction of justice", then making the same disclosure "publicly" in a poorly redacted filing in court would be less likely to draw charges...and f they want to signal to others in Russia or the Ukraine, this would also be effective. 

I did note that the attorneys were quick to clarify the Manafort meeting, and the timing.  If this was really a mistake, I would have expected a no-comment.
Click to expand...
As a lawyer, I can't imagine doing this.  I think that is a good thing.

 
Banger said:
it appears that one of Trump's last ditch hopes may be to try and keep the Mueller report from the public.  This is a very good thread on if that strategy is likely to work...

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1083203987468357635
Click to expand...
.That report must explain why the investigation has concluded, and any instance in which the AG overruled the Special Counsel.
Click to expand...
I remember reading/posting a long while back a piece about the end game for Sessions/Rosenberg (at that time, assumed they would be in place), and so ultimately a report would come, and then what would happen? 

Anything Sessions and now Whitaker (LOL) / Barr would do to put their thumb down on Mueller would be reported... by Mueller. Withholding of that fact would be obstruction itself, and the event itself could be obstruction if done at the behest of the President (IMO). So the whole thing is a Chinese finger trap, the best solution is to keep your fingers out the damn thing. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I remember reading/posting a long while back a piece about the end game for Sessions/Rosenberg (at that time, assumed they would be in place), and so ultimately a report would come, and then what would happen? 

Anything Sessions and now Whitaker (LOL) / Barr would do to put their thumb down on Mueller would be reported... by Mueller. Withholding of that fact would be obstruction itself, and the even itself could be obstruction if done at the behest of the President (IMO). So the whole thing is a Chinese finger trap, the best solution is to keep your fingers out the damn thing. 
Click to expand...
which means Trump will put in his whole hand and both feet.....

 
Banger said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I remember reading/posting a long while back a piece about the end game for Sessions/Rosenberg (at that time, assumed they would be in place), and so ultimately a report would come, and then what would happen? 

Anything Sessions and now Whitaker (LOL) / Barr would do to put their thumb down on Mueller would be reported... by Mueller. Withholding of that fact would be obstruction itself, and the even itself could be obstruction if done at the behest of the President (IMO). So the whole thing is a Chinese finger trap, the best solution is to keep your fingers out the damn thing. 
Click to expand...
which means Trump will put in his whole hand and both feet.....
Click to expand...
hell he will put his head in it take that to the bank brohan 

 
Banger said:
which means Trump will put in his whole hand and both feet.....
Click to expand...
Well yeah, Trump is Trump, he's a walking talking obstruction machine. But Mueller will report that, and then the DOJ gets the report, so every attempt at redaction or to withhold the report, which keeps the people finding out about it under claim of 'privilege'.... is arguably a crime itself, for that AG, that lawyer who argues for it. Actually representing the president could result in criminal acts for those people doing so. I'm not saying WH lawyers will ever be prosecuted but practically speaking that's what could happen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And here, there is another problem: Trump’s legal team has been saying they don’t think a sitting President can be indicted. Leaving aside the point above in (6) and (7), the only way that claim makes any sense is if the President must be impeached first. Every real scholar who says a sitting President can’t be indicted couples that with a view that impeachment is the remedy. So if the President asserts the view he can’t be indicted, he has to allow the turnover of all investigative material to Congress. Otherwise he would be no different than King George III, literally above the law.
Click to expand...
- Katyal

- That's kind of amazing magic but it's true. 

 
I was listening to a little bit of Rachel Maddow on NPR's Fresh Air yesterday - apparently Maddow and her producer just did a Podcast on Spiro Agnew's resignation/conviction.  

I only caught a little bit - but she made a very important point when comparing that era to now:  The DOJ stood strong and independent in the face of political pressure to go after Agnew.  Thats seems rather unlikely with Whittaker and/or Barr.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
196
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 13 (members: 0, guests: 13)
Top