Hard to believe that Rudy was once a US attorney and is now busily drilling holes in the bottom of his client’s boat. In the immortal words of Chandler Bing, could he BE any more incompetent? “That $130 grand? Oh yeah, Donald paid him back in installments. Comey was fired because he couldn’t tell Donald he wasn’t a target when he would do so for Hillary. Can you believe it? Hillary? HILLARY!” at which point steam escapes from his ears and horns begin to protrude from his skull.
A few comments I have seen are proposing that at this point they figure that it’s better to lay the blame for everything on Trump’s feet than Cohen, to try and keep Cohen from flipping.
I…don’t know that I buy that theory. With Cohen’s argument that he paid off Stormy on his own he was looking at being disbarred. Not the worst thing in the world, if you have other businesses and mostly live on those. And, ultimately, we have to assume that he’s in the trash bin for a lot more than paying off Stormy Daniels. Sparing him that one thing does nothing.
The other theory, that they’re switching their story to match the evidence that the FBI picked up in Cohen’s office seems more likely, but doesn’t explain the admission about firing Comey over the target/not a target issue. Or, at least, that seems like a strange fact to have buried among Cohen’s things and expect to have make its way loose, over everything else that might be in there.
That’s what I don’t understand. Apparently, according to Trumps twitter feed, the memos are totally fake, a work of fiction. How can something that’s totally fictional also be classified?
The memos did tell a story about how Flynn cock-blocked Putin by “forgetting” to tell Trump that Putin called, and Trump, who’s always horny for dictators - got his adult diapers all twisted over it.
But while parts of the Comey memos were leaked, that particular story wasn’t and it only came out with the official release of the memos. And it can only be classified if it’s true. Our 4D chessmaster is in a classic Catch-22 with this one.
I agree. I think he knew in some general sense that Russia was on his side but I don’t think he was entrusted with the details. He was blinded by his narcissism, in that he believed all these shady Russian linked characters wanted to work for free on his campaign because “they loved him.”
And I also don’t buy that the prosecutions of Manafort and possibly Cohen were undertaken just to get them to flip on Trump. These guys are some serious “bigly” criminals - Manafort’s crimes in Ukraine and Russia are far worse, by several orders of magnitude, than anything the Trump campaign has been accused of.
And Cohen has deep lifelong connections to the Russian Mafiya, including insurance fraud and using Trump properties for money-laundering.
And these guys have been playing President PeePee like a fiddle for years. And he’s willfully stupid because he doesn’t want to believe that they have any motives other than love for him.
This is why his constant claims that the dossier is fake are so incriminating. Because, aside from the one “salacious allegation”, the dossier basically claims Trump was manipulated without his knowledge. Now if someone told me my business partners were committing crimes in order to help me without my knowledge - I’d be seriously concerned and I’d take a very hard look at the accusations. I certainly wouldn’t dismiss them outright and try to smear the people making them. Unless I was in on it. It really makes Trump look guilty as hell, even if he may be out of the loop on the details.
From Axios:
Trump is not looking at this from the perspective of minimizing his legal liability (even to the extent that he understands it). His perspective is about what it says about him as a Great Man. From that perspective, the Russia investigation is an attempt to undermine his historic landslide victory and perhaps his entire presidency. Saying that other people colluded without his knowledge is marginally better than saying he himself colluded, but not much better, both because of the implications for his election and for what it says about him as a great manager and Business Genius.
BTW, I’d never heard of Paul Manafort until 2016. His behavior is one of the keys to the Trump phenomenon so I started a thread on him.
IANAL, but if the meeting between Don Jr. and the Russian lady now known to be a Kremlin operative was what it appeared to be, then was it not illegal? If so, the guilt may be there — one just needs to wade through all the "he said / she said"s to reach a conclusion.
But you ask “how [did] this collusion happen”. Are you asking how the Trump campaign and the Kremlin made contact in the first place? There is much evidence of contact, e.g. Papadopoulos.
Trump’s incompetence would be amusing, if not so tragic. Shame on a people so jaded and confused that a near-majority can’t even see this farce for what it is.
0 for 5.
No one on this board appears to be able to communicate a coherent theoretical narrative explaining how the Trump Russian Collusion was undertaken. It’s all vagaries. After a year and half, Mueller has nothing. Trump haters haven’t even bothered to develop a story of how it all went down. But see, once you do put a story out there, it will be debunked. I guess the strategy is to keep yelling Russia and Trump and hope it sticks.
Russia makes a good enemy. It’s part of our pop culture and the default villain in every other movie. Of course, many American will readily accept them as villains in real life as well. You can bully them also. You can put sanctions on Russia. China not so much.
PS - When two Russian pranksters offered nude photos of Trump to Democrat Adam Schiff, wasn’t Schiff colluding with the Russians? Man, was he excited about those photos. Listen.
And how would you know what Mueller has?
Had a look at the secret files there, J. Edgar? 
Do you have a cite that contains all testimony and documents and other evidence Mueller has obtained? Because without that, you couldn’t possibly be anything close to assured of this statement.
As we see here, the Trumpist/Putinist “After a year and half, Mueller has nothing” talking point is getting exactly zero traction:
Time to retire it, surely?
Then we have this gem, which is unusual, if nutty:
Suddenly the bar has become the novelistic gifts of Trumpist/Putinist opponents. Can’t plot past events out in a “coherent narrative”? Then you must offer your fealty to the authoritarians: they’ve won!
Honestly. You’re making yourself ridiculous. Can’t you do better?
Trump celebrates National “I Haven’t Got A Fuckin’ Prayer” Day.
Trump does specialize in vagary, so when you’re right, you’re right.
You can just go ahead and grab 'em by the vagary if you’re rich and famous.
I posted a coherent narrative in post #4274. I feel like it is extremely simple and straightforward. If you can point out to me the part you’re having trouble with I’ll be happy to help.
At a minimum, Mueller has all the publicly available evidence of collusion that I posted about earlier. However, there are numerous reasons to believe that Mueller also has evidence that is not currently available to the public.
Am I correct that our undead friend from out West is expecting us to provide a step-by-step list of actions with detailed drawings or it didn’t happen?
“I really need to see an elaborate flowchart to fully grasp this.”
I find it hard to believe anything approaching a “coherent” narrative would be considered acceptable anyway.
Team A and Team B are not openly allies but have the same goal. Some folks from Team A secretly get together with some folks from Team B to discuss how to achieve that common goal. That is pretty much a textbook example of collusion.
Furthermore, we have lots of evidence that this is exactly what happened, and so does Bob Mueller.
Coherent enough?
unphotoshopped pics and videos and signed and notarized confessions or it didn’t happen.
Plus, flowcharts and detailed drawings.
And maps.
Yeah, topographical maps with lots of color.
Twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was?