I've read it now...hadn't read that earlier. The Federalist pushed this issue but they cited tweets by others. None of the "8" that attended the briefing have continued to chastise the FBI on this matter, right? As opposed to not being critical at all? I've never been all in on any politician, Democrats included. They deserve criticism and accolades when warranted. Nobody is "right" all the time. I was harsh with Gowdy for the way he conducted the 7th Benghazi investigation that didn't uncover anything that hadn't already been covered, from memory.
I haven't heard anything yet. From what I'm hearing it was a briefing without anything of importance coming out. The FBI is filled with corruption but there's a chance in this "Spygate" incident they are innocent.
I saw a twitter thread surmising that Gowdy had met with a certain special prosecutor and is now on team "state's evidence". It was logical. He apparently went dark shortly after a surmised meeting in December and then announced his intention to not run in January. Three days later he sent out a message supporting Mueller. The problem for Nunes, Trump, et al. is that they don't have a perjury trap to deal with, they're all caught up in an obstruction of justice trap.
Political party lines always rule the day. If Gowdy is now out in front to talk about this their is a very good likelihood that he's the temporary spokesman for the R's on this issue.
That's quite the conspiracy. Occam's Razor would be that Gowdy doesn't want to rock the boat on his way out the door. He's Pro-FBI and Trump behavior justifier.
Sharyl Atkisson produces some though provoking material, much of it watchable even with her definite bias. This article is not in the "quality" material category though. In fact, it's a simplistic analogy not worthy of comparison to some her other stuff. Atkisson missed by comparing Russia to some common street thug. To use her analogy, the "bank" is potentially controlled by the Mob who wish to use it for their own nefarious purposes. That's what the FBI is investigating. Does the FBI alert the "bank", potentially cutting off all hopes of understanding how high the corruption goes and be happy with arresting the pawns? Do they discreetly investigate the full operation hoping to bring down the "bosses" in mob and the "bank"? Atkisson is advocating the former. That's a feel good viable approach yet it does nothing to prevent the same scenario from occurring over and over.
I wonder what our resident tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist from OU says about this: I suppose to be fair it could be that Mueller is saving all the good stuff for his report.
I read through the response to the motion in limine and I don't understand why they need to mention Trump or Manafort's connection to the campaign at all. It appears there is plenty of evidence available to prove that he committed fraud in securing the loan. The fact that it was approved by an executive attempting to curry favor in order to advance his career appears to have no bearing on the fraud that was committed.
The defendant was hoping to move the trial away from DC or otherwise use any connection to Trump introduced by the prosecutor to say the trial would be biased due to anti-Trump bias in the jury pool. Mueller then said there is no Trump connection. Bigger view is that Manafort’s lawyer forced Mueller to tip his hand.
Is it possible he is just going for a conviction and is disciplined enough not to waste time on accusations that he can't prove in this case? Does it mean there was no collusion?
That’s not the point. The conspiracists thought Manafort was the smoking gun for Trump Russian collusion. We got multiple deranged posts from OU tinfoil hat hoping for this to be true.
It may not have been your point, and you are correct that Barry engaged in all sorts of speculation (like others here did). However, it is Mueller's point and the judge's.
So, let me see if we can track leverage; Manafort knows he's in hot water. Can he still cut a deal (plead guilty) in return for evidence against Trump (testimony of direct knowledge of Trump colluding with the Russians)? I would think so. But that is not happening. So why wouldn't he already cut that deal anyway? If Mueller thinks he can win the case with what he has and if the collusion evidence has nothing to do with the fraudulent loan transaction then it stands to reason that the collusion case against Trump is not dead yet. It's only not relevant to this case.
Yes you are logically correct, but put yourself in the mind of the crazed anti-trumpers who thought Mueller was going to find Manafort (and Trump by inference) guilty of treason. Just one more datapoint that Mueller has nothing on Trump.
It does seem that Mueller could attempt to give total immunity to Manafort in exchange for the holy grail of testimony of direct knowledge of Trump colluding with the Russians. But can you cut a deal on one accusation for evidence on one that is totally unrelated to the other? "I shot the sheriff but I did not shoot the deputy?"
Manafort likely wasn't involved long enough with Trump's campaign to have any collusion tied to Trump via Manafort. We already KNOW that Manafort met with one of the Russian Oligarchs following the RNC to give him an "update". Manafort can likely be guilty of doing something illegal on any number of fronts. Is it critical that Manafort implicates Trump? Cohen is still waiting in the wings and as a longtime Trump "fixer" and Trump Inc. employee he has much more visibility to any Trump skeletons. I'll reiterate what I've said from the beginning. Russian collusion could have been going on throughout Trumps campaign and it's possible that DJT wasn't involved. To him is was simply wind at his wings that he'd ignore and take credit as it it was all him. A narcissist doesn't always know or care about their wake as long as they can take credit for benefits and deflect any negatives.
For the record; any indictment other than Trump theoretically justifies Mueller's investigation but at times I believe nobody really cares about the other indictments; it's either Trump is a traitor or they are on a witch hunt. Unfortunately, the country is suffering through the hatred and cynicism through-out this process.
100% agree. We need to understand at what levels the Russian's infiltrated our election process to counteract it in the future. Whether that included Trump directly of not is inconsequential to the greater Mueller investigation. For those on my Facebook feed beating the Trump impeachment drum the guidance I've given them is beat him at the ballot box. That will have a far greater chance of success than hoping/praying for any impeachment proceedings. Even if the latter occurred, the timing wouldn't happen until a 2nd term anyway.
And Pence becomes your President. I'd rather have Trump because though he may be following the evangelical playbook, Pence is evangelical (and my "That's why I'm a Democrat" speech comes out). The other side of it, to be completely "fair and balanced" is to ask Obama directly why did the hacks occur on his watch and why did the Democrats try to downplay Hillary's gross negligence with her servers? And why did he mock Mitt Romney when he accused him of engaging in Cold War thinking? A brief list of Russian activity on Obama's watch: 1) Ukraine and Syrian imperialism 2) Crimea annexation 3) Hacking into our servers 4) Impacting the Constitutional process of an election All of that happened while Obama was President and if it is proven (or failed to be proven; however you want to look at it) that Trump did not collude then what we have done is give Obama a pass and instead spent much time and emotion on the wrong thing UNLESS as you say, we truly understand how the infiltration occurred and we are able to put up the fire wall and inform the American public of who was truly negligent.
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had a good op-ed in the Washington Post. A reminder about the purpose of the Mueller investigation.
That's what's sad about this. There should be bipartisan support for Mueller uncovering as much as possible on the broader issue of Russian interference (and frankly, all foreign interference since we obviously know Russia isn't the only country that does this sort of thing). We can't necessarily stop it, but we can mitigate it if we at least know when it's happening. Instead, there's bipartisan "taint" (to borrow mchammer's favorite word). The Democrats desperately want everything to point at Trump for obvious reasons, and the GOP (with some exceptions) desperately want to undermine the investigation just in case it ultimately ends up pointing at Trump. It's kinda pathetic. Consider Manafort. That guy is a dirty character, and he probably belonged in the slammer years ago. Even before I heard the case against him, I could just tell that he was thuggish. However, Democrats are falling all over themselves to see him granted immunity to testify against Trump. That's not likely to happen since nothing leveled against him even points in that direction, but that's their focus. And of course, the GOP just wants the whole process de-legitimized.
I've always said that Mueller's #1 directive is not to get Trump, it's to keep any of this from washing up on HRC/Obama's shores.
Lot's of possibilities. Bottom-line: We know the Russians f'd with us to a more than unacceptable level. We need an unbiased truth seeker who will allow the truth to fall wherever it may; nobody is immune. That old man with a lamp is STILL looking for an honest man...
