Indictments coming...

[fskimospy]

Why is it that conservatives are only for stricter business regulation and are only interested in the welfare of low income workers when it relates to restricting immigration?

No need to answer that.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm for it. Have ICE lock a few bosses and things will change. The $25B+ is in remittance payments sent to Mexico each year.

Would this include Trump? I guarantee at some point in recent history he has employed an illegal

 

[Maxima1]

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2...trump-he-thinks-it-couldn-t-be-better-n842501

"WASHINGTON — Donald Trump is telling friends and aides in private that things are going great — for him.

Some reasons: He's decided that a key witness in the Russia probe, Paul Manafort, isn't going to "flip" and sell him out, friends and aides say."

Now that's something. It must not be obstruction he's afraid of if we're going by when Trump said to have stopped talking to Manafort and when Manafort was fired.

 

[UNCjigga]

Take everything Trump's "phone a friends" reportedly say with a huge lump of salt.

 

[Pens1566]

Manafort's friend/co-defendant Gates has lost 3 of his attorneys. Abruptly. Although he kept the one that is known for cutting deals. Hmmm ... maybe Trump wasn't real accurate in feeling safe with Manafort.

And Hicks will either plea or get locked up. I'm guessing the former. "Deep Throat" on more than one level apparently.

 

[pcgeek11]

Maybe it's that you don't know how sarcasm works.

I guess you didn't see the " /sarcasm " tag on my post.

 

[blackangst1]

Pretty good outline of the investigation so far-

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...-charged-collusion-2018-not-chance-ncna832771

 

[jackstar7]

I guess you didn't see the " /sarcasm " tag on my post.

I feel like you just proved my point.

 

[dawp]

this should be an interesting year

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/trump-russia-indictment-mueller-probe-384969

 

[jackstar7]

Pretty good outline of the investigation so far-

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...-charged-collusion-2018-not-chance-ncna832771

That's already wildly outdated.

Also, with Jr posting that McCabe was fired... I don't think anyone should discount any potential crimes happening in this admin.

 

[blackangst1]

That's already wildly outdated.

Also, with Jr posting that McCabe was fired... I don't think anyone should discount any potential crimes happening in this admin.

The analysis is only a month old...wildly outdated?

 

[jackstar7]

The analysis is only a month old...wildly outdated?

Did you not pay attention in January? Maybe look for pieces that don't just comport with your confirmation bias.

 

[blackangst1]

Did you not pay attention in January? Maybe look for pieces that don't just comport with your confirmation bias.

Uh, what confirmation bias of mine could NBC possibly support? You talk like I posted a Fox News piece lol

 

[pcgeek11]

I feel like you just proved my point.

Then you would be wrong.

 

[jackstar7]

Uh, what confirmation bias of mine could NBC possibly support? You talk like I posted a Fox News piece lol

I'll just let things stand for people to make their own conclusions.

 

[jackstar7]

Then you would be wrong.

Obviously.




^
|
|
|
See... that's sarcasm.

 

[blackangst1]

I'll just let things stand for people to make their own conclusions.

The difference between you and I, I dont put much faith in "people" generally, because when it comes to politics and the law, most people are morons.

Ill wait for Mueller's investigation to be done, and welcome its findings. As I have done so far.

 

[fskimospy]

The analysis is only a month old...wildly outdated?

I think this analysis is just fine, so long as we're all clear on what it's saying. It's basically saying that there is no crime called 'collusion'. This is correct, but in colluding with the Russians to influence the election Trump and/or his associates may have committed a large quantity of other crimes.

At this point I would be surprised if Mueller didn't come back with at least one criminal statute Trump is guilty of breaking. If he starts digging into Trump's finances and the Trump organization I anticipate the number of criminal offenses will quickly start multiplying.

 

[blackangst1]

I think this analysis is just fine, so long as we're all clear on what it's saying. It's basically saying that there is no crime called 'collusion'. This is correct, but in colluding with the Russians to influence the election Trump and/or his associates may have committed a large quantity of other crimes.

At this point I would be surprised if Mueller didn't come back with at least one criminal statute Trump is guilty of breaking. If he starts digging into Trump's finances and the Trump organization I anticipate the number of criminal offenses will quickly start multiplying.

Yep I agree. Obviously since people have been charged for other crimes. But collusion is a non starter, no matter how many news reports or opinions say it isnt.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep I agree. Obviously since people have been charged for other crimes. But collusion is a non starter, no matter how many news reports or opinions say it isnt.

I don't think it's a non-starter because it probably strongly relates to how likely it is he will be impeached, but it's not a prosecutable offense, yes.

 

[blackangst1]

I don't think it's a non-starter because it probably strongly relates to how likely it is he will be impeached, but it's not a prosecutable offense, yes.

Well, collusion has a specific legal meaning which I dont think applies here. From the link I posted:

Despite its current use as a sort of catchall term for the Trump administration’s alleged ties to Russian meddling, “collusion” is only a federal crime in the area of antitrust law. In this legal context, collusion occurs when two or more people or entities decide to gain an unfair market advantage and/or secretly limit open competition.

One of the quintessential examples of collusion is an agreement to engage in price-fixing. Or put another way, collusion has nothing to do with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, collusion has a specific legal meaning which I dont think applies here. From the link I posted:

Right, but Congress doesn't abide by the US code when impeaching Trump. It would in fact be unconstitutional for them to have to. They can impeach him for basically anything they want, and certainly for collusion with the Russian government as a candidate.

 

[blackangst1]

Right, but Congress doesn't abide by the US code when impeaching Trump. It would in fact be unconstitutional for them to have to. They can impeach him for basically anything they want, and certainly for collusion with the Russian government as a candidate.

Well, yeah thats true.

 

[UNCjigga]

this should be an interesting year

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/trump-russia-indictment-mueller-probe-384969

I think *if* Mueller decides to bring an obstruction case against Trump, you'd better hope the NY AG is able to bring a simultaneous indictment in Federal court--not sure how you'd avoid a constitutional crisis otherwise.

 

[zinfamous]

Well, collusion has a specific legal meaning which I dont think applies here. From the link I posted:

It's also important to point out that lack of precedent is not a disqualification for establishing precedent. I agree that the analysis is correct because it merely claims that there is no precedent for prosecuting "collusion," in this way. Simply, it is very hard to prove and requires various piles of circumstantial evidence that all point to the same general narrative. It is those various piles of circumstantial evidence and shady contacts that seems to keep popping up, however, and as far as we know, Mueller has uncovered a substantial amount of it. "There is no law defining collusion in this way" is not the same as saying that it can't be prosecuted.

It is certainly likely that Trump and/or his admin and family, in various capacities, will find themselves on the wrong ends of various indictments due to crimes uncovered in this investigation. This doesn't necessarily mean that Mueller can't set a new precedent, depending on how thorough his investigation turns out to be, if he can paint a larger, cohesive narrative that connects all of their activities.

I personally think it more likely that Trump, through his own actions and those of his family, will be shown to be thoroughly compromised by the Russians. While not acting directly: "hey, help me win this election and I'll help you out!", the claim is that his vast financial interests in Russia and compromising/blackmail material controlled by Russian intelligence keeps him relatively trapped as what amounts to, in principal, a Russian "agent." His repeated behavior in abject defiance against US policy/Congressional sanctions to the sole benefit of Russian interests is, to the least curious observer, rather alarming.