And if we don’t find it we’ll keep looking for it anyway, won’t we? There’s gotta be a pony in that pile of manure, right?
Hey, that’s what everyone did with the Mueller results. That investigation was going to bring down Trump and everyone around him. Instead, a couple of flunkies got dinged on process violations, and not much else. This could end up the ssme way.
Speculating about the contents of an indictment based on the evidence in the indictment is not the same as speculating on future actions for which there is no evidence.
Trump’s National Security Advisor, Trump’s National Campaign Chairman, and Trump’s personal lawyer. Yeah, “flunkies.”
- Mueller returned indictments against 34 individuals and 3 companies.
So I guess any number under 40 qualifies as “a couple”.
That was before the Trump organization’s CFO Weisselberg was indicted.
Do they need to stand in line?
NEXT!
Oh no, the 34 indictments are just from the Mueller investigation. It includes the indictments on the Russians who where found to have interfered in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf.
It doesn’t include Steve Bannon, Tom Barack, Elliot Broidy. Parnas and Furman or any of the other recently indicted criminals in Trump’s circle…
As I understand it, the sole reason that Don the Con was not indicted was the ill-advised DOJ memo which states that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Mueller did provide plenty of evidence that should have been used to impeach and convict, had Republicans had the ability to put country over party…
If this is ‘it’, not only is it not true, it could not possibly be true.
Actual, genuine collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia led to the start of an FBI investigation a month and a half before Sussman met with Baker.
March 2016 - Papadopoulos/Misfud meetings Rome and London
April 2016 - Misfud travels to Moscow and meets with Papadopoulos on his return and tells Papa about “thousands of emails” that could be politically damaging to Hillary Clinton.
May 2016 - Papadopoulos meets Aussie Pol Alexander Downer for drinks and tells him about the Russian emails.
July 2020 - Aussies tell FBI about Papa’s bragging and Crossfire Hurricane is launched on July 31, 2016.
September 19, 2016 - Sussman meets with Baker.
Since others already pointed out the hilarity of a member of the NSC being a “flunky”, we’ll just move on to this little nugget. You literally started a thread to HAHA about a process violation? Make up your mind, is it a big deal or no?
I remember those process violations. In addition to the laundry list of other things Manafort got “dinged” for including massive money laundering, six individuals associated with the Trump were convicted of felony perjury, all due to lies they told to hide their meetings with Russia. You remember Russia, Sam - that’s the country whose interference in the 2016 election Mueller found vast amounts of substantive evidence of.
And the reason Trump didn’t get “brought down” was because Trump and Barr openly and illegally blocked compliance with congressional subpoenas, and every single Republican in the Senate voted to block any evidence or witnesses from being presented and to prevent Trump, Barr et alia from being held accountable for the crimes they were openly committing.
But if you prefer to couch multiple serious felonies as “process violations” and party-wide corruption as an exoneration, you do you, man.
Send out for pizza?
ISTM (and a whole lot of other people) Trump was far more “hobbled” by, at best, his staggering ineptitude. Bill Clinton managed to govern the country pretty well in the midst of an impeachment over a blow job and wound up leaving office with a nearly 70% approval rating.
Pardon if this has already been discussed, but isn’t there some rule whereby Durham’s authority is in question? Since he was working as an Attorney General when appointed and therefore can’t work as a Special Counsel? or am I thinking of something else?
You know, a lot of people don’t understand what Manafort did before joining the Trump campaign or why his prosecution was such a big deal.
He made a career out of cleansing the reputation of murderous dictators, rigging elections in foreign countries, and making mobsters look like legitimate political candidates.
He was involved with a Russian-backed Ukrainian political party, one that was intent on weakening the NATO alliance and assisting Russia in the westward expansion of their borders - an existential threat to Western Europe. The candidate in the opposing party was literally poisoned.
His party lost that election, but won the next one - and they had the opposition candidate arrested and incarcerated after the victory.
I still maintain that his very presence on an American political campaign was a huge red flag that warranted a robust law enforcement investigation and that the FBI would’ve been negligent to ignore it.
And the Ukraine scandal was just the Russia scandal, Part 2, in which Trump and his Russian-linked cronies attempted to subvert US foreign policy in order to assist Putin in his goal of taking over Eastern Ukraine.
I was curious about what Biden would do with Durham after he was elected. It was Barr who appointed Durham as Special Counsel. Biden’s team decided to leave him be to finish his investigation, knowing there was little or nothing of consequence to find. Biden did not wish to appear to be suppressing an investigation. Looks like he was right.
The important distinction between Mueller’s speaking indictments and Durham’s “speaking indictment” is that Mueller wrote with complete specificity exactly what evidence he had to charge Trump criminally, if he had been allowed to charge him. You conveniently forget that Mueller understood he was prohibited from bringing charges against Trump. Kind of a significant difference in the circumstances surrounding each investigation.
Mueller’s team believed they were bound by the DOJ OLC memo that says you cannot charge a sitting president with a crime. Moreover, Rosenstein forbade Mueller from investigating Trump’s personal financial circumstances – which may well have revealed specific ties to Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/politics/trump-russia-justice-department.html
Durham’s “speaking indictment” is nothing more than a lot of speculation, hints and misdirection. If Durham had actual evidence to bring indictments, he’d have brought them. He was not bound by any DOJ OLC memo. He didn’t bring any other indictments. That should tell you everything you need to know about his “investigation.”
[random Q-pid]
Suppression of evidence! Suppression of evidence!
[/random Q-pid]
An interesting development:
Relevant portion:
In a motion filed Wednesday, Sussmann’s lawyers note that the alleged false statement was unrecorded and that there are no contemporaneous notes about it. Baker, the sole witness, has “already disclaimed memory of the statement” and has testified in ways that support rather than cut against Sussmann’s account, according to Sussmann’s lawyers.
And a bit more:
“While the Indictment in this matter is 27 pages long, the majority of the allegations are not relevant to the crime the Special Counsel has chosen to charge,” says the motion from Sussmann’s lawyers.
“And on that charge, a single alleged false statement, the Indictment plainly fails to provide Mr. Sussmann with the detail and clarity that the law requires and that is essential in enabling Mr. Sussmann to prepare his defense,” the lawyers added.
Looks like a whole lotta nuttin’.
To you. To me. Yes.
I’m sure someone will be along shortly to explain how we are in error trusting stories from AP.