The Real Collusion Story

[lawgator1]

However...

If the reports I read from this morning are accurate, the fact it's gone way beyond the simple Russia-Trump collusion investigation to matters which have happened since he's been in office (firing of Comey being the most given example) then yes, it's a witch hunt and nothing less.

Huh?

Trump said himself that he fired Comey expressly because of the Russia investigation.

 

[Septic]

If, yes. However, I feel there's more to the FBI IG report that has yet to be seen in regards to McCabe and Comey.

I also feel like Mueller will cheapen the whole process if he ends up with something very minor AND that happened after Trump was in office.

Biggest thing for me is the fact Rosenstein said he would recuse himself if it turned out Mueller put him under the microscope for his recommendation to remove Comey. Since that hasn't happened, I'd dare say Comey is nothing more than a media smokescreen and red meat for the left base. Not saying it won't or couldn't happen down the road, but for the moment, I don't think there is anything related to the Comey/McCabe firing on the radar.

I can't disagree with much of that. I think however that it wouldn't be the job of an investigator to focus on the "size" of infraction - only that one exists. As far as I understand, he's there to uncover and investigate any crimes uncovered in the Russian election involvement probe - not as they just pertain to Trump.

He's not a prosecutor, just an investigator.

 

[lawgator1]

If, yes. However, I feel there's more to the FBI IG report that has yet to be seen in regards to McCabe and Comey.

I also feel like Mueller will cheapen the whole process if he ends up with something very minor AND that happened after Trump was in office.

Biggest thing for me is the fact Rosenstein said he would recuse himself if it turned out Mueller put him under the microscope for his recommendation to remove Comey. Since that hasn't happened, I'd dare say Comey is nothing more than a media smokescreen and red meat for the left base. Not saying it won't or couldn't happen down the road, but for the moment, I don't think there is anything related to the Comey/McCabe firing on the radar.

Mueller has their memos. Trump himself said he did it in an effort to thwart the investigation. Then he tried to spin it some other way.

If the evidence is there that Trump fired him to try to put hurdles in the way of the investigation, that could constitute obstruction. It would also create a political quandry for the GOP in Congress who then have to either stand up and protect law enforcement and oust Trump for obstruction, or explain to their constituents why they did not tow the Fox/Hannity wing version of the company line.

 

[Vol0725]

If his firing of Comey was an attempt at obstructing the initial investigation, he opened that door himself.

This whole 'witch hunt' narrative is nothing more than speculation since none of us knows what Mueller know's or doesn't know or where he's going.

People who are innocent don't sweat this profusely.

The Comey obstruction argument is weak, in my view.

Rosenstein had authored a memorandum arguing that Comey should be removed as FBI director for failing to adhere to traditional Justice Department policies and norms. In particular, Rosenstein scolded Comey for publicly revealing derogatory investigative information about people who have not been formally charged with crimes.

Rosenstein recommendation letter to fire Comey also stated "...the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials..." agree as well.

From former US Chief Attorney, Andrew McCarthy...Rosenstein could do a great service by amending his special-counsel appointment to make clear that (a) Mueller is to investigate Russia’s actions to interfere in our election; (b) the previous statements about possible Trump campaign “coordination” with the Russian government were unnecessary and are withdrawn; and (c) President Trump is not personally suspected of wrongdoing in connection with the 2016 election. Obviously, the last clarification would require Rosenstein to consult with Mueller; but given that the matter was under investigation for a year before Mueller’s appointment, that Comey repeatedly told Trump he was not a suspect prior to Mueller’s appointment, and that no other evidence of actionable collusion between Trump and Russia has publicly come to light, Rosenstein should relieve the president of the burden of this suspicion if that can be done honestly.

Note: What I am proposing would not preclude Mueller from continuing to explore possible obstruction offenses — notwithstanding my personal view that the obstruction angle is meritless.

If Rosenstein did that, Mueller’s investigation would have the public support it should have, and Congress could proceed with its inquiry into possible investigative abuses. The two are important and separate. They should not be at odds.

 

[Grand Vol]

I can't disagree with much of that. I think however that it wouldn't be the job of an investigator to focus on the "size" of infraction - only that one exists. As far as I understand, he's there to uncover and investigate any crimes uncovered in the Russian election involvement probe - not as they just pertain to Trump.

He's not a prosecutor, just an investigator.

Don't you hate it when I'm reasonable?

Here's the sticky part of your reply though...

At what point does it go beyond that? That's the real question here. How loosely must the connection be and how many degrees of Kevin Bacon before Trump is legitimately "guilty" of collusion?

It's one thing to have ironclad proof of direct involvement and another entirely to have innuendo that he was involved.

 

[Grand Vol]

Mueller has their memos. Trump himself said he did it in an effort to thwart the investigation. Then he tried to spin it some other way.

If the evidence is there that Trump fired him to try to put hurdles in the way of the investigation, that could constitute obstruction. It would also create a political quandry for the GOP in Congress who then have to either stand up and protect law enforcement and oust Trump for obstruction, or explain to their constituents why they did not tow the Fox/Hannity wing version of the company line.

lol

 

[lawgator1]

Don't you hate it when I'm reasonable?

Here's the sticky part of your reply though...

At what point does it go beyond that? That's the real question here. How loosely must the connection be and how many degrees of Kevin Bacon before Trump is legitimately "guilty" of collusion?

It's one thing to have ironclad proof of direct involvement and another entirely to have innuendo that he was involved.

As to collusion, that could be a difficult question to answer absent some testimony or documentation of him knowing of contact or agreements of any sort of quid pro quo understanding, even if its in loose terms (i.e. help us out with the emails and we will be good to you once in office).

I think of more interest and likely more tangible in terms of evidence will be the why. For example, is there evidence that Trump is heavily in debt to someone in Russia or under their influence? Is he susceptible to some kind of blackmail, financial or otherwise.

The Stormy Daniels thing is an interesting twist to that. What if he told her things, or even texted her things, that show that he has .... proclivities that match up to some of the suspicions of him and some sketchy women in Russia?

Does not seem far fetched, at least in theory. But right now it is in theory.

 

[Grand Vol]

Does not seem far fetched, at least in theory. But right now it is in theory.

Nothing concerning Trump seems far fetched to you. Your posts are reminiscent of supermarket tabloids about how he's about to give the country away to the Russians, Lizard People and the Sith Empire.

This Stormy Daniels thing is going to be hilarious when it implodes.

 

[theFallGuy]

Nothing concerning Trump seems far fetched to you. Your posts are reminiscent of supermarket tabloids about how he's about to give the country away to the Russians, Lizard People and the Sith Empire.

This Stormy Daniels thing is going to be hilarious when it implodes.

that's impossible, we all know that the last Sith was Darth Vader

I call shenanigans

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is what I don't understand. If I were innocent I would be doing everything in my power to expedite and put resources to a quick resolution. I certainly wouldn't be attacking the guy in charge of it all.

Unless it truly is a witch hunt hatchery job. Then you'd point it out and fight it every way possible.

 

[lawgator1]

Nothing concerning Trump seems far fetched to you. Your posts are reminiscent of supermarket tabloids about how he's about to give the country away to the Russians, Lizard People and the Sith Empire.

This Stormy Daniels thing is going to be hilarious when it implodes.

He paid her $130,000 in hush money days before the election using a pseudonym to hide it from the public, along with a go between dummy corporation and an attorney.

The only thing "far fetched" about it is that the Republican party can manage to live with themselves having put this con man in office.

 

[Grand Vol]

He paid her $130,000 in hush money days before the election using a pseudonym to hide it from the public, along with a go between dummy corporation and an attorney.

The only thing "far fetched" about it is that the Republican party can manage to live with themselves having put this con man in office.

As opposed to the DNC trying to put a con woman in office? Don't kid yourself. This past election sucked bigly for candidates. Still sucks.

Gonna suck in 2020 as well. Not that you care since you love marching the party line instead of thinking for yourself.

 

[Septic]

Don't you hate it when I'm reasonable?

Here's the sticky part of your reply though...

At what point does it go beyond that? That's the real question here. How loosely must the connection be and how many degrees of Kevin Bacon before Trump is legitimately "guilty" of collusion?

It's one thing to have ironclad proof of direct involvement and another entirely to have innuendo that he was involved.

If there's evidence of a crime, it should be investigated no matter how long or upsetting it is for donny or his political agenda.

Muellers probe is not specific to trump no matter how many people on each side make it out to be. Criminal investigations aren't and shouldn't be beholden to an imaginary and arbitrary timeline of political or partisan convenience.

Again, it's mostly only the media and partisan bloviating that spews the buzzword 'collusion'. As we all know, that's not a crime - but conspiracy to defraud in an American election could be - doesn't the American public deserve to know the truth?

 

[Grand Vol]

If there's evidence of a crime, it should be investigated no matter how long or upsetting it is for donny or his political agenda.

Muellers probe is not specific to trump no matter how many people on each side make it out to be. Criminal investigations aren't and shouldn't be beholden to an imaginary and arbitrary timeline of political or partisan convenience.

Again, it's mostly only the media and partisan bloviating that spews the buzzword 'collusion'. As we all know, that's not a crime - but conspiracy to defraud in an American election could be - doesn't the American public deserve to know the truth?

And what evidence is there?

 

[lawgator1]

And what evidence is there?

Exhibits 1 through 600: Trump's own comments before and after taking office.

 

[Grand Vol]

Exhibits 1 through 600: Trump's own comments before and after taking office.

lol

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_Jdts5rL0[/youtube]

 

[Grand Vol]

that's impossible, we all know that the last Sith was Darth Vader

I call shenanigans

Not a true Star Wars fan.

Legends...

 

[FLVOL_79]

If his firing of Comey was an attempt at obstructing the initial investigation, he opened that door himself.

This whole 'witch hunt' narrative is nothing more than speculation since none of us knows what Mueller know's or doesn't know or where he's going.

People who are innocent don't sweat this profusely.

Wut? You serious Clark?

Have you been living in a cave the past decade? The days of "innocent until proven guilty" are looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong gone Bro.

If you are accused of something and decide to sit on your coattails for 14+ months because you think justice will prevail in the 21st century you might have been dropped on your head a few times as a baby.

In a perfect world does the innocent person sit idly by waiting for justice? Yep. In this modern world does a man with money just sit idly by while the court of public opinion convicts him? Hell no.

 

[FLVOL_79]

If there's evidence of a crime, it should be investigated no matter how long or upsetting it is for donny or his political agenda.

Muellers probe is not specific to trump no matter how many people on each side make it out to be. Criminal investigations aren't and shouldn't be beholden to an imaginary and arbitrary timeline of political or partisan convenience.

Again, it's mostly only the media and partisan bloviating that spews the buzzword 'collusion'. As we all know, that's not a crime - but conspiracy to defraud in an American election could be - doesn't the American public deserve to know the truth?

The "investigation" was started because of collusion claims..which is not a crime...so how is the investigation even valid?

 

[Septic]

And what evidence is there?

I'm speaking in generalities, if Mueller wanders upon evidence of a crime (e.g. Manifort), shouldn't it be investigated - even if it's not the original focus?

To my point, if there is evidence of a crime - should it be ignored for fear of looking partisan?

 

[Septic]

Wut? You serious Clark?

Have you been living in a cave the past decade? The days of "innocent until proven guilty" are looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong gone Bro.

If you are accused of something and decide to sit on your coattails for 14+ months because you think justice will prevail in the 21st century you might have been dropped on your head a few times as a baby.

In a perfect world does the innocent person sit idly by waiting for justice? Yep. In this modern world does a man with money just sit idly by while the court of public opinion convicts him? Hell no.

Speaking of naiveté, rich people don't get convicted - trump has nothing to worry about.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

As opposed to the DNC trying to put a con woman in office? Don't kid yourself. This past election sucked bigly for candidates. Still sucks.

Gonna suck in 2020 as well. Not that you care since you love marching the party line instead of thinking for yourself.

Ignoring it all is suddenly thinking for yourself?

 

[orangeluvr]

It isn't limited to collusion (which isn't a crime). It was started as a collusion investigation and incredibly, against normal DOJ operating procedures, has become a fishing expedition. I mean everyone knows that.

Look at the guys Mueller "charged". 2 dudes who supposedly were responsible for over 100 million dollars in fraud which carried over 300 years of prison sentences...and they end up pleading guilty to charges that basically come with no sentence..while those huge mind blowing indictments of fraud become farts in the wind. Seems..fishy..get it?

Here is the thing that bothers me..that an inquiry is opened into election collusion, which has been proven to not have happened, yet this guy gets to dig into anything and everything not election related.

Imagine getting a speeding ticket then the Cops subpoena your home computer..

This thing has become a circus like the OJ trial..with waaaaaaaaay less actual illegal sh!t...(and murder).

Dude(?) Where've you been! It's obstruction of justice. :crazy:

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm speaking in generalities, if Mueller wonders upon evidence of a crime (e.g. Manifort), shouldn't it be investigated - even if it's not the original focus?

To my point, if there is evidence of a crime - should it be ignored for fear of looking partisan?

Possibly. I don't disagree with your premise here, however, I'm not sure how limited in scope these special prosecutors are and whether or not they would turn over such things to another investigative agency.

As for Manifort, I do believe he was part of the initial investigation, so I don't think they just "happened" onto that.

But, for instance, if Mueller discovered Trump was murdering babies and drinking their blood, I don't know how much within his purview that is to follow up on or if he's legally bound to pass such things on for another investigator.

The answer to your last question is no, evidence shouldn't be passed on because of partisan intent. On the flip side of that coin, going way beyond the intent and charter of said investigation and looking for anything incriminating for partisan purposes is equally wrong. To which, I think you agree.

 

[Grand Vol]

Ignoring it all is suddenly thinking for yourself?

Ignoring what?