US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[benjipwns]

Immunity is contingent on testimony. You back out, you lose it.

Once Flynn is sentenced, he can't be prosecuted for this again can he? The unspoken deal is that Mueller will be recommending no jail time. Which is not much of a gift considering the crime. And the more common reason for pleas in general.

Ideally, the writers are planning on having Flynn appear before a judge of Mexican-American descent who sentences him to the maximum penalty while Mueller keeps going "Your honor! Excuse me, your honor!" before leaving and Donald Jr. and Eric meet him near the back and say something cryptic about how it will probably be rough on the General's son. And that it's quite cold in Siberia.

[kingv]

I’m not really gathering what you’re saying. are you saying that there is not evidence to charge him with anything else, and that’s why it’s not there?

If so, I believe this to be quite wrong based on more or less everything else I have read.

[benjipwns]

No, for all I know there's a hundred thousand things a hundred different DA's offices could charge him with tomorrow. What I'm saying is that I don't see the evidence that his deal with Mueller is a grand bargain for blockbuster testimony or cooperation because his deal didn't include any immunity from the special counsel regarding his testimony.

He pled guilty to two counts of lying to the FBI. In his plea agreement, the special counsel agreed to not further investigate him regarding lying to the FBI in that January interview or his false statements on his FARA filing in March. But nothing else. The deal is not contingent on anything except his guilty plea, which he did and is now awaiting sentencing for. It's also seemingly irrelevant because I can't seem to figure out how he could be prosecuted further by anybody on his two counts of lying to the FBI.

It'd be malpractice by his attorney to advise him to agree to testify to criminal actions he performed that the special counsel could immediately charge him for.

[Joe Molotov]

I hate these midseason replacement series. You know it's gonna get cancelled before America ever gets to Prosperity.

[kingv]

No, for all I know there's a hundred thousand things a hundred different DA's offices could charge him with tomorrow. What I'm saying is that I don't see the evidence that his deal with Mueller is a grand bargain for blockbuster testimony or cooperation because his deal didn't include any immunity from the special counsel regarding his testimony.

He pled guilty to two counts of lying to the FBI. In his plea agreement, the special counsel agreed to not further investigate him regarding lying to the FBI in that January interview or his false statements on his FARA filing in March. But nothing else. The deal is not contingent on anything except his guilty plea, which he did and is now awaiting sentencing for. It's also seemingly irrelevant because I can't seem to figure out how he could be prosecuted further by anybody on his two counts of lying to the FBI.

It'd be malpractice by his attorney to advise him to agree to testify to criminal actions he performed that the special counsel could immediately charge him for.

Honestly, if somebody like Preet Bhahara says “this is indicative of a deal”, then I’m going to take his statement at face value. He was a US attorney and maybe knows something about how this works.

 Not going to go look for a source, but IIRC there is a sealed portion of the guilty plea that outlines the deal in more detail. Obviously we aren’t privy to that piece.

[seagrams hotsauce]

lmao @ this fuckwad using an iPad 1 with the oldest charger ever.

[Nola]

lmao @ this fuckwad using an iPad 1 with the oldest charger ever.

To be fair that was from 2011. Back when we were on the cusp of a debt crisis.

Thankfully 2017 Paul Ryan has lived by his words and we are on pace toward sound Republican fiscal governance as promised.

[benjipwns]

Honestly, if somebody like Preet Bhahara says “this is indicative of a deal”, then I’m going to take his statement at face value. He was a US attorney and maybe knows something about how this works.

Honestly, I'm going to take the fact that one can go look at the actual documents of the plea agreement as being a pretty good "indicator of a deal" over a former US attorney, Robert Mueller himself and even that press conference Flynn gave stating the same obvious thing that literally is reported everywhere too.

I'm saying it's an incredibly bad deal if you want it to be setting up Flynn testifying about criminal actions he was part of. And doing my own offhand speculating that it's more likely for sentencing purposes and maybe an unofficial agreement to not rope Flynn Jr. into the investigations scope by putting an end to Flynn's affair.

Also that the real question is still why did Flynn lie about things he was not only allowed to do, but was already known to have done. Really, the whole thing is good news for Trump so far in that he stumbled into keeping a potential hazard of a habitual liar with incredibly poor judgement away from a vital post.

Not going to go look for a source, but IIRC there is a sealed portion of the guilty plea that outlines the deal in more detail. Obviously we aren’t privy to that piece.

Can't find a single mention of this. I also question the legality of this on its face but will have to look into it. They'd have to have submitted it to the court and we'd know that they submitted a sealed guilty plea. In fact, just the very concept of a secret side sealed guilty plea for non-protection reasons is amazing in and of itself.

[Nola]

Since people are still speculating:

The surprising thing about the plea agreement and the stipulated facts underlying it is how narrow they are. There’s no whiff of the alleged Fethullah Gulen kidnapping talks. Flynn has escaped FARA and influence-peddling charges. And he has been allowed to plead to a single count of lying to the FBI. The factual stipulation is also narrow. It involves lies to the FBI on two broad matters and lies on Flynn’s belated FARA filings on another issue. If a tenth of the allegations against Flynn are true and provable, he has gotten a very good deal from Mueller.

The narrowness gives a superficial plausibility to the White House’s reaction to the plea. Ty Cobb, the president’s ever-confident attorney, said in a statement: “The false statements involved mirror the false statements [by Flynn] to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year. Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn.” Cobb reads Friday’s events as an indication that Mueller is “moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion” of the investigation.

This is very likely not an accurate assessment of the situation. If Mueller were prepared to settle the Flynn matter on the basis of single-count plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, he was almost certainly prepared to charge a great deal more. Moreover, we can infer from the fact that Flynn accepted the plea deal that he and his counsel were concerned about the degree of jeopardy, both for Flynn and for his son, related to other charges. The deal, in other words, reflects the strength of Mueller’s hand against Flynn.

It reflects something else too: that Flynn is prepared to give Mueller substantial assistance in his investigation and that Mueller wants the assistance Flynn can provide. We are not going to speculate about what that assistance might be. But prosecutors do not give generous deals in major public integrity cases to big-fish defendants without good reason—and in normal circumstances, the national security adviser to the president is a very big fish for a prosecutor. The good reason in this case necessarily involves the testimony Flynn has proffered to the special counsel’s staff. The information in that proffer is not in any of the documents released Friday, and it may not even be related to the information in those documents. Prosecutors tend to trade up. That is, for Mueller to give Flynn a deal of this sort, the prosecutor must believe he is building a case against a bigger fish still.

There’s another peculiar nuance: Section 3 of the plea agreement leaves Flynn unprotected against certain future prosecutions. The section is titled “Additional Charges” and states in its entirety that “In consideration of your client’s guilty plea to the above offense, your client will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Office for the conduct set forth in the attached Statement of the Offense” (emphasis ours). The office, in other words, seems to be reserving the right to prosecute Flynn for conduct not set forth in that document, which is to say all of the other conduct on which he might be vulnerable. It is hard to know what to make of this language. It could mean nothing at all. It could mean that the threat of further prosecution is being held over Flynn’s head if he does not hold up his end of the bargain. It could mean that another plea agreement covering other matters is coming.

https://lawfareblog.com/flynn-plea-quick-and-dirty-analysis

This and the accompanying podcast in the article I posted the other day about sums up where I am comfortable speculating about the Flynn plea. Despite the often juxtaposed backgrounds, all of the people involved agree on this basic outline and this parameter of speculation. And I’m not really sure why I should doubt them?

[benjipwns]

And the last paragraph contains the only thing that I've been saying here:

The office, in other words, seems to be reserving the right to prosecute Flynn for conduct not set forth in that document

This isn't an immunity deal for testimony because no immunity was granted. Anything criminal Flynn testifies to that he was part of, he can still be prosecuted for. Which is exactly how these deals don't work normally.

If he's such a big get, who is essential to the obviously forthcoming any day now criminal indictments against the Trump campaign and family, then why did Flynn get such a shitty deal? Why he'd plead guilty first if they're threatening to prosecute him anyway if he doesn't deliver? Your assumption (and quite essentially, your attorneys) in that situation should be that you have no deal, you are going to be prosecuted further. And with a good chance that it's especially because of your testimony to the grand jury.

So the most obvious answer is the sign of good faith notion (by admitting to being a repeated liar to law enforcement and other government officials) in exchange for a lenient sentence on two mild charges. (That should again be noted were lies made for no rational conceivable reason.)

[kingv]

This is exactly how the Manafort deal also worked, so unless you work for the fbi or are a US attorney or somehow have some reason other than “I was big-time poligaf poster” please explain on what grounds you are saying this “isn’t usually how it works”.

We’re,, Manafort didn’t have a deal. But the rest stands.

[kingv]

Relevant:
http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/queen-for-a-day-the-dangerous-game-of-proffers-proffer.html

Most proffers are made with the informal understanding that the government, if satisfied that you are telling the truth in the proffer session, will subsequently enter into a formal, written immunity agreement or plea bargain agreement with you. (But don't expect to see that informal understanding reflected in the written proffer agreement that you and your attorney will sign. In fact, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the formal, written proffer agreement will explicitly state that no promises of either immunity or a plea bargain have been made.)Accordingly, your attorney and the prosecutor should have already informally worked out, before you ever sit down for the proffer session, a basic understanding of: 1) what you are likely to proffer; and, 2) what the contemplated post-proffer immunity or plea agreement will look like. To the extent that either part of this informal understanding is not perfectly clear to you, your attorney, and the federal prosecutor, you are heading into exceedingly dangerous territory. Why? Because, proffering will almost always harm you if post-proffer immunity/plea discussions fall apart and the government decides to indict you. For the same reason, if the prosecutor is not trustworthy or if you are not prepared to tell the complete truth, the proffer session should never take place.

This seems to suggest that this is exactly how these deals are made.

Basically Flynn has informal agreement that they will not prosecute him for his other crimes if he delivers on his proffer.

Edit: on second thought, Hmm, well, maybe you are making the distinction between the proffer agreement and the plea agreement.

That said, we really have no idea what the proffer agreement says. It might not give immunity until steps 1-5 happen.

[benjipwns]

The "Manafort deal"? The one where Manafort pled not guilty to the major and multiple criminal charges he still faces with spending the rest of his life in prison possible if he totally loses at trial?

Are you seriously suggesting that prosecutors accepting Manafort putting up millions of dollars worth of real estate as bail collateral, an agreement that has not been accepted by the judge who originally ordered the house arrest in the first place, to be some kind of witness immunity agreement? That's definitely really not how agreements to testify usually work at all.

[kingv]

I edited it to mention he didn’t have a deal before you responded my dude (or while you were responding).

But regardless, I think it’s safe to say we are both talking straight of our ass.

[benjipwns]

Relevant:
http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/queen-for-a-day-the-dangerous-game-of-proffers-proffer.html

Most proffers are made with the informal understanding that the government, if satisfied that you are telling the truth in the proffer session, will subsequently enter into a formal, written immunity agreement or plea bargain agreement with you. (But don't expect to see that informal understanding reflected in the written proffer agreement that you and your attorney will sign. In fact, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the formal, written proffer agreement will explicitly state that no promises of either immunity or a plea bargain have been made.)Accordingly, your attorney and the prosecutor should have already informally worked out, before you ever sit down for the proffer session, a basic understanding of: 1) what you are likely to proffer; and, 2) what the contemplated post-proffer immunity or plea agreement will look like. To the extent that either part of this informal understanding is not perfectly clear to you, your attorney, and the federal prosecutor, you are heading into exceedingly dangerous territory. Why? Because, proffering will almost always harm you if post-proffer immunity/plea discussions fall apart and the government decides to indict you. For the same reason, if the prosecutor is not trustworthy or if you are not prepared to tell the complete truth, the proffer session should never take place.

This seems to suggest that this is exactly how these deals are made.

Basically Flynn has informal agreement that they will not prosecute him for his other crimes if he delivers on his proffer.

Take a look at the next few paragraphs:

Why are proffers so risky, since your words are not supposed to be used against you at a subsequent trial? To begin with, unlike immunity or plea agreements, proffer agreements do not prevent the government from making derivative use of your statements. In other words, although the government cannot use your actual proffer session statements against you in its case-in-chief, it can use the information that you provide to follow up leads and conduct further investigations. If those leads and further investigations capture new evidence, such evidence can be used to indict and convict you. Even if the prosecutor is not able to develop new information from your proffer, he will gain a tactical advantage from seeing (at the proffer session) how you fare under the pressure of tough questioning, how you present yourself as a witness and, most importantly, what your theory of the case is. This will better prepare him to build his evidence against you and to cross-examine you at trial, should you choose to testify, and will thus boost his self-confidence. Moreover, if, like many suspects, you implicate yourself in criminal activity during the proffer session, the prosecutor will feel better about prosecuting you, because he will "know" in his heart of hearts that you are guilty. (If the AUSA believes that you lied during your proffer session, he can indict you under Section 1001 of the federal criminal code for false statements to the government. As a practical matter, this is almost never done.)

But there are even bigger risks in proffering. Virtually all proffer agreements allow the government to use your statements against you for impeachment purposes if you take the stand in a subsequent proceeding and testify inconsistently with your proffer. And the version of the proffer that will be compared to your trial testimony, in order to see whether you should be impeached, is the version that was interpreted and written down by government agents. More ominously, in recent years many government-drafted proffer agreements allow use of your statements against you if any part of your defense, including questions your lawyer asks of government witnesses on cross-examination, is inconsistent with your proffer. These broadly worded agreements, which have been consistently upheld at the federal circuit court level, may effectively deny you the right to present a defense at trial if your anticipated post-proffer immunity or plea deal does not come through. Why? Because if any part of your defense is deemed to be inconsistent with your proffer, and if that proffer implicates you in any way, the entire proffer will be admitted against you at trial. Thus, your attorney may find herself in the unenviable position of failing to contest key portions of the government's case, declining to cross-examine certain witnesses and choosing not to put you on the stand, all in an effort to prevent your damaging proffer statements from coming before the jury. Proposed proffer agreements submitted to you for your and your attorney's signatures should be examined with great care.

Given the risk involved, why would you even want to make a proffer if you have criminal exposure? For one reason and one reason only: if you are facing imminent prosecution and need an immunity agreement or plea bargain deal, you usually cannot get either, particularly in white collar cases, without first making a proffer.

He got a plea bargain deal, where he agreed to be prosecuted at any time in the future for anything except the two specific times on one day he lied for no reason to the FBI (and one time on a FARA form) including anything criminal he testifies to the grand jury. (If he is in fact a witness.)

If the "deal" was just for information to further the investigation, then he's definitely not a "big get" and the start of the great collapse. At this point it seems impossible that Flynn, alone, has any kind of groundbreaking information. It might even be Mueller getting a last loose end out of the way so he can start wrapping up and write his one page report.

With an extended 300 page appendix with air-tight documentation on how exactly Hillary Clinton had Seth Rich murdered.

[kingv]

Or they have so much information that playing ball here is his best option to avoid serious jail time.

Or his son is in jealousy, and they agreed to look the other way on that if he led with this plea deal.

Or there are other plea deals in the works, but Mueller doesn’t want to show his hand on what he does and doesn’t know yet.

This constant downplaying of every piece of trump/Russia news would make brucespringsteen proud

[benjipwns]

I'm just doing my part to Make America Great Again and working to ensure there's no more victims of the Clinton/Weinstein/DNC/Obama/Loretta Lynch/Kneeling NFL Players/Spacey/UraniumOne machine like Seth Rich.

[Mandark]

The unspoken deal

I thought your whole premise is that everything is in the document.

[benjipwns]

My premise is that the released legal document is the only binding legal agreement we are aware of and should be the basis of the details in our rampant expert speculation. Especially the fact that it's not immunity for testimony but rather a pretty open statement of potential future prosecution on other matters.

That baseless unimpeachable speculation of mine can be dismissed by an argument against it, but considering how plea deals normally work, I'm not sure what else could be the inducement for Flynn to agree to one except for a prosecutorial recommendation on sentencing. Unless, like you mentioned pointedly that he's pleading guilty out of the goodness of his heart and this is a real personal attempt at reforming himself. Which like you, I find unlikely considering he didn't plead guilty to the false statements on FARA.

[Pwnz]

With the way things are going in the US I'm honestly expecting another great depression. And if not something that bad, another recession. But worse than the one that started in 2008.

I usually don't worry about this type of shit but... the fuckery is too immense right now.

It takes years for malinvestment to burst a bubble. Probably 2022 to 2024.

2009-2024 would honestly be one of the longest runs in the modern American economy without a recession.

1975, 1981, 1991, 2001, 2009.  Not that the past is always necessarily prelude, and the severity of 2009 probably alters things, but I would think 2024 is a pretty optimistic forecast for avoiding recession for 15 years.

Though it would seem like the hand grenades the Republicans are throwing into the economy have a very realistic chance of exploding when the Democrats are likely on the watch given current electoral trends. Which if that happens, god help us.

2009 lingered a few years and the recovery may have delayed the next recession. But yeah the average PE ratio is a bit high, could happen soon.  Usually the PMI will lead before shit gets bad and it hasn't dived yet.

[agrajag]

But I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right. My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions.

Flynn doing what's right for the country.

 

[Mandark]

I'm not sure what else could be the inducement for Flynn to agree to one except for a prosecutorial recommendation on sentencing.

Several people I've read with actual expertise/experience have suggested a broader agreement not yet publicly formalized.

[benjipwns]

My mistake, the agreement already outlines suggested sentencing and that there will not be further prosecutor recommendation to reduce or increase them, so the document proves my baseless speculation to be entirely without support:

D. Estimated Applicable Guidelines Range

Based upon the agreed total offense level and the estimated criminal history category set
for.th above, your client's estimated Sentencing Guidelines range is zero months to six months'
imprisonment (the "Estimated Guidelines Range"). In addition, the parties agree that, pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § SEI .2, should the Court impose a fine, at Guidelines level 4, the estimated
applicable fine range is $500 to $9,500. Your client reserves the right to ask the Court not to
impose any applicable fine.

benji debunked yet again by simple facts

[VomKriege]

This constant downplaying of every piece of trump/Russia news would make brucespringsteen proud

benji has been, I think, clear that he has some "unorthodox" premises on the matter but honestly what you call downplaying I feel is only healthy skepticism. Some people have whipped themselves into hysteria and self convinced that Trump is almost literally to be walked out of the White House in cuffs any day now and that it is Mueller endgame.

It may very well be that the Mueller investigation unravel in a way that ultimately lead to Trump being thoroughly discredited, stepping down or even possibly impeached. Don't get me wrong, this administration was a trainwreck from the start and it is already mindblowing that prominent members of Trump team are getting hounded and charged by a special investigation. There's no doubt that Mueller will find dirt considering the notoriously shady business practices of Trump and his clan and their hilariously incompetent & amateurish handling of overtures made by Russan lobbyists. However it's not out of the question that the investigation stops short of that too and will be content to levy lighter charges at the entourage (relative to TAKING ORDERS DIRECTLY FROM THE KREMLIN TO FURTHER A GRAND EURASIAN DOMINATION PLAN BY RUSSIA), either because the collusion will turn out to be short of some of the fever dreams or to qualify as "mere" corruption (when it comes to Russian lobbying, it's hard to tell if intermediaries -besides the Russian Ambassador to the US- are representing private or state interests), because it may be hard in many cases to prove it conclusively or out of plain political considerations. Building a case is hard labor and would the investigation extend to late 2018 or 2019 (and depending on the midterm results) everyone might just be content to wait for Trump to "gracefully" exit (with polite and firm suggestions to go into retirement) by his term end and try to put it below the rug, as much as it could be.

In short, and as you said yourself, we are not privy to what Mueller is looking for ultimately & how strong or weak their case is at the moment. With regards to Flynn, considering how grave some of the stuff alleged in the press has been (including selling to Turkey the service of extraditing somehow a prominent opposition figure from the US), the charges brought out so far are pretty tame.

[chronovore]

There's something that doesn't sound right to me in all of these news stories I'm seeing. They keep referencing that "Flynn is ready to testify that he was directed by Trump official(s) to contact Russia." What Trump official at the time outranked Flynn? 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/936602442996813824

6/ Deals like this are offered *only* when a witness can incriminate someone "higher up the food-chain" than them. In the case of the nation's former National Security Advisor, the *only* people above him in the executive-branch hierarchy are the President and the Vice President.

[thehunter116]

This constant downplaying of every piece of trump/Russia news would make brucespringsteen proud

benji has been, I think, clear that he has some "unorthodox" premises on the matter but honestly what you call downplaying I feel is only healthy skepticism. Some people have whipped themselves into hysteria and self convinced that Trump is almost literally to be walked out of the White House in cuffs any day now and that it is Mueller endgame.

It may very well be that the Mueller investigation unravel in a way that ultimately lead to Trump being thoroughly discredited, stepping down or even possibly impeached. Don't get me wrong, this administration was a trainwreck from the start and it is already mindblowing that prominent members of Trump team are getting hounded and charged by a special investigation. There's no doubt that Mueller will find dirt considering the notoriously shady business practices of Trump and his clan and their hilariously incompetent & amateurish handling of overtures made by Russan lobbyists. However it's not out of the question that the investigation stops short of that too and will be content to levy lighter charges at the entourage (relative to TAKING ORDERS DIRECTLY FROM THE KREMLIN TO FURTHER A GRAND EURASIAN DOMINATION PLAN BY RUSSIA), either because the collusion will turn out to be short of some of the fever dreams or to qualify as "mere" corruption (when it comes to Russian lobbying, it's hard to tell if intermediaries -besides the Russian Ambassador to the US- are representing private or state interests), because it may be hard in many cases to prove it conclusively or out of plain political considerations. Building a case is hard labor and would the investigation extend to late 2018 or 2019 (and depending on the midterm results) everyone might just be content to wait for Trump to "gracefully" exit (with polite and firm suggestions to go into retirement) by his term end and try to put it below the rug, as much as it could be.

In short, and as you said yourself, we are not privy to what Mueller is looking for ultimately & how strong or weak their case is at the moment. With regards to Flynn, considering how grave some of the stuff alleged in the press has been (including selling to Turkey the service of extraditing somehow a prominent opposition figure from the US), the charges brought out so far are pretty tame.

To be fair benji is so good at Devils advocate he could be skeptical he isn't actually a robotic communist cat.

[Nola]

In short, and as you said yourself, we are not privy to what Mueller is looking for ultimately & how strong or weak their case is at the moment. With regards to Flynn, considering how grave some of the stuff alleged in the press has been (including selling to Turkey the service of extraditing somehow a prominent opposition figure from the US), the charges brought out so far are pretty tame.

Which I think that is why it is sending strong signals to people more versed and privy to the way these investigations work. And More narrowly how Mueller operates. At least from what I have gathered trying to figure this all out.

Because the charges brought on Flynn are incredibly mismatched with what most reasonable observers think Flynn is exposed to. That such a mismatch would not exist if Mueller was not expecting some major substantive cooperation at exposing at least someone higher up the food chain, whoever that is. But there are only a handful of people that could be.

The second inference I keep reading and listening to prosecutors familiar with these types of investigations is Mueller is engaging in a type of signaling, which I first heard mentioned during the Manafort arrest: look at Flynn and Papadopoulos, if you cooperate with us this can be you, if not, look at Gates and Manafort. The train is leaving, tickets are limited, you would be wise to get the few ones remaining or its come what may be for you. And we will not be gentle if you don't cooperate with us.

Which is all substantiated further by Mueller's prosecutorial history. Where he gave, by any account, an incredibly lenient deal to Sammy Gravano and his laundry list of murders(I think released this year on a light 15 year sentence) in exchange for his enormously substantive deal that turned him into the star witness that brought down the Gotti crime family.

Beyond those two things I think it is hard to infer much else at this point. Except to maybe say it would be a legacy crushing blunder if Mueller doesn't feel confident he can end up catching someone further up the food chain on substantive charges or exposure and he merely lets someone like Flynn skirt on such paltry charges for a failed move on Kushner, McFarland, or Trump himself.

[agrajag]

There's something that doesn't sound right to me in all of these news stories I'm seeing. They keep referencing that "Flynn is ready to testify that he was directed by Trump official(s) to contact Russia." What Trump official at the time outranked Flynn? 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/936602442996813824

6/ Deals like this are offered *only* when a witness can incriminate someone "higher up the food-chain" than them. In the case of the nation's former National Security Advisor, the *only* people above him in the executive-branch hierarchy are the President and the Vice President.

Well, all the media outlets have been saying Kushner. Although his job title is merely nebulous "senior adviser," he is Trump's son in law and thus a bigger fish than Flynn.

[Nola]

Kushner makes the most sense.



Though on another level, finally processing that Trump's shit-show was structured in such a way that large swaths of people, including a lieutenant-general, were on an ongoing basis, reporting to and taking political direction from Jared Kushner is 

[shosta]

Benji's not playing devil's advocate and his position really isn't unorthodox. Watergate had a very specific crime at its center and the investigation done inched closer and closer to the president's circle until it was obvious the president had ordered the break-in and wiretapping. The mere fact that people are calling this the Trump-Russia scandal should reveal how amorphous it is in comparison. It's going in the opposite direction: find something wrong that Trump or his company did, and then try to link that back to Trump (impossible if word of mouth) or to the Russians who committed the crime (also probably impossible, or if it wasn't then it would have been discovered by now). The fact that the most "interesting" and "consequential" news always happens to be about something other than the state sponsored hack of the DNC should be a red flag that this will never amount to anything more than a few convictions for some really trivial laws being broken, certainly nothing more serious than when the Bush administration fired lawyers for prosecuting Republicans or when Bill Clinton assassinated William T. Coleman Jr. RIP.

During Watergate, Deepthroat leaked critical details to the press regularly and kept the nation captivated for over a year. This White House in comparison is filled with staff who don't respect and even hate their superiors so, as benjipwns already noted, either there's nothing to leak or this is the most well kept secret conspiracy by the most incompetent people on Earth.

[Nola]

Why does it have to be either/or and "if not this then that" of such extremes?


The investigation is focused on establishing if there was or was not a working relationship between members of the Trump administration and members of the Russian government as part of the Russian interference of the election. Calling that the Russia-Trump investigation seems sort of natural TBH. The direction from the acting Attorney General certainly allows for pretty far-reaching capacity to investigate other matters, but I guess I just don't see what you do here? If anything, like you frame with watergate, Mueller seems to be starting on the perimeter and inching closer to the inner-circle. Papadopoulos and now Flynn. Moving up the chain to find out what specifically happened, who knew, and when did they know it? Establishing a timeline of events and putting all the relevant actors in their context.


I would argue the two most consequential news items aside from Manafort(which may actually be part of a strategy to that central question) have both related directly to that central question. And the next shoe everyone is expecting to drop is someone slightly further up the chain in Kushner.


It's certainly worth considering how a clown circus like this could possibly of covered up a major impropriety or crime for this long(and to be fair, we might already be aware of when and what that thing is, but just haven't gotten the full context that makes it truly damning), but I don't think its quite the place so early in the investigation to start thinking the absence of that evidence is evidence of its absence.

[agrajag]

I mean, is Trump Jr. talking to Russians telling them he would love it it they had dirt on Hillary Clinton and then proceeding to schedule a meeting with Russians regarding said dirt is considered "nothing to leak?"

[Mandark]

"If something had happened we'd already know" is also a Bad Take.

[Nola]

I mean, is Trump Jr. talking to Russians telling them he would love it it they had dirt on Hillary Clinton and then proceeding to schedule a meeting with Russians regarding said dirt is considered "nothing to leak?"

I mean come on, plenty of people interviewing under oath for heading a major US legal institution that will be investigating your boss are unable to answer at least 35 pertinent questions pertaining to the contact they and their circle had with the Russians. Totally normal.

[thehunter116]

Benji's not playing devil's advocate and his position really isn't unorthodox. Watergate had a very specific crime at its center and the investigation done inched closer and closer to the president's circle until it was obvious the president had ordered the break-in and wiretapping. The mere fact that people are calling this the Trump-Russia scandal should reveal how amorphous it is in comparison. It's going in the opposite direction: find something wrong that Trump or his company did, and then try to link that back to Trump (impossible if word of mouth) or to the Russians who committed the crime (also probably impossible, or if it wasn't then it would have been discovered by now). The fact that the most "interesting" and "consequential" news always happens to be about something other than the state sponsored hack of the DNC should be a red flag that this will never amount to anything more than a few convictions for some really trivial laws being broken, certainly nothing more serious than when the Bush administration fired lawyers for prosecuting Republicans or when Bill Clinton assassinated William T. Coleman Jr. RIP.

During Watergate, Deepthroat leaked critical details to the press regularly and kept the nation captivated for over a year. This White House in comparison is filled with staff who don't respect and even hate their superiors so, as benjipwns already noted, either there's nothing to leak or this is the most well kept secret conspiracy by the most incompetent people on Earth.

What are you smoking? Like seriously are you even watching the same investigation we all are? That was just a longform version of "nothing is happening".

People like Mueller don't do something like this if there is "nothing" to be had. Get out of fantasy world. This isn't the revenge of the DNC or a witch hunt. And what do you mean no leaks? What the fuck do you think the past 6 months have been? Dear Christ I'd hate to see what you consider a leaky operation to be if Trumps admin is "leakproof". We're literally at a special console because of Leaks.

I also wouldn't call money laundering, conspiracy against the US and espionage trivial. 

[kingv]

The fact that people say nothhave by is happening is really just direct evidence of how successfully trump and the Republicans have moved the Overton window on this, and how fatigued people have become over the trump administration.

It’s pretty remarkable how much the Trump administration’s story has shifted. In the course of less than a year, it’s went from “of course we didn’t work with the Russians on anything” to “ok, we did talk to them, but only about adoptions” to “ok, we did try to get some illegal information on hillary BUT it was a dud, so no harm no foul”  to “ we might have gotten some information, but c’mon, do you really think it made a difference in the election?”

Now I do agree that this might not end in Trumps impeachment, for various reasons. But I expect there are still a number of bombshells to drop, whether this is more information on how the campaign collaborated with the Russian, or a deep dive into Russian money laundering that Trump was privy to.

Edit: nevermind that the obstruction of justice is case is basically proven even to laymen, already. The defense of that is basically just semantics on what words mean.

[Brehvolution]

Cutting the Corporate Tax from 35% to 20% is pretty major. Good luck ever coming back on that without being blackmailed on killing "growth" and "jobs".

I've been hearing for years that since the effective rate was so much lower than the statutory rate, you could lower it from 35% while closing loopholes, keeping it revenue-neutral while making it fairer across the board.

Instead they lowered the corporate rate and got rid of individual credits to (partially) offset it. The Republican party does not lack for chutzpah these days.

I've been seeing that the cut from 35% to 20% is just domestic. They are actually cutting it even less that 20% for income generated overseas thus giving companies even more incentive to keep shipping jobs overseas.

[Phoenix Dark]

The funniest thing about all of this is that Trump's lawyers genuinely believe it'll all be over before Christmas, and they've convinced Trump of it. You don't have to be a lawyer to see Mueller hasn't revealed his full hand yet. I'm starting to believe that Trump will attempt to directly obstruct the investigation early next year. After the first big, post-Christmas reveal/indictment/news/etc.

[Joe Molotov]

The funniest thing about all of this is that Trump's lawyers genuinely believe it'll all be over before Christmas, and they've convinced Trump of it. You don't have to be a lawyer to see Mueller hasn't revealed his full hand yet. I'm starting to believe that Trump will attempt to directly obstruct the investigation early next year. After the first big, post-Christmas reveal/indictment/news/etc.

Well, his lawyer's are now using the "it's not illegal if the president does it" defense so it's possible they're not very good lawyers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/impossible-trump-obstruct-justice-lawyer/story?id=51557532

[agrajag]

Try to obstruct the people investigating you for obstruction, brehs

[Human Snorenado]

The funniest thing about all of this is that Trump's lawyers genuinely believe it'll all be over before Christmas, and they've convinced Trump of it. You don't have to be a lawyer to see Mueller hasn't revealed his full hand yet. I'm starting to believe that Trump will attempt to directly obstruct the investigation early next year. After the first big, post-Christmas reveal/indictment/news/etc.

I'm pretty sure they're just grifting for cash and will bounce once it becomes inconvenient.

[seagrams hotsauce]

I'm too lazy to look it up but is there anything in the presidential succession act that says it has to be applied if the president goes to jail?

[Nola]

“Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

- Richard Nixon


Sounds like Trump’s lawyers now have an ironclad defense strategy.

[VomKriege]

The funniest thing about all of this is that Trump's lawyers genuinely believe it'll all be over before Christmas, and they've convinced Trump of it. You don't have to be a lawyer to see Mueller hasn't revealed his full hand yet. I'm starting to believe that Trump will attempt to directly obstruct the investigation early next year. After the first big, post-Christmas reveal/indictment/news/etc.

I'm pretty sure they're just grifting for cash and will bounce once it becomes inconvenient.

Besides imagine having someone as undisciplined as Trump as a client

[shosta]

The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower AMT after doing so.

This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate.

[Tasty]

I think that's clearly in prep for raising the corporate rate to 22% like Trump apparently now suddenly wants.

[shosta]

Actually, they're probably going to lower the alternative minimum tax instead.

[zomgee]

https://twitter.com/SarahHuckabee/status/794255968448020480

 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[agrajag]

What's Pretentious Hobo got to do with this

[zomgee]

it was funny lookin

[agrajag]

Mueller better stretch this out to when/if Democrats have a Congress majority. No way this Congress will do anything with people like Jim Jordan being in the judiciary committee.

[Nola]

Mueller better stretch this out to when/if Democrats have a Congress majority. No way this Congress will do anything with people like Jim Jordan being in the judiciary committee.

The average length of a special counsel investigation is something like 900 days.

So as long as trends hold there should at least be some break in the ice come 2018. Though at best it will just be like the Nixon era where Democrats will have a slight majority, so they can strengthen investigations, but lack the numbers to execute any actions without Republican cooperation.

I honestly do think the only way Trump goes is in 2020 or resigns.

[thehunter116]

https://twitter.com/hsu_spencer/status/937800163808210944


O
M
G

Y
O
U

D
E
N
S
E

M
O
T
H
E
R
F
U
C
K
E
R
S

[Human Snorenado]

Mueller better stretch this out to when/if Democrats have a Congress majority. No way this Congress will do anything with people like Jim Jordan being in the judiciary committee.

The average length of a special counsel investigation is something like 900 days.

So as long as trends hold there should at least be some break in the ice come 2018. Though at best it will just be like the Nixon era where Democrats will have a slight majority, so they can strengthen investigations, but lack the numbers to execute any actions without Republican cooperation.

I honestly do think the only way Trump goes is in 2020 or resigns.

Well, there is another way...

https://thetakeout.com/trumps-diet-is-horrifying-but-he-can-buy-a-triple-bypa-1820975126

Keep eating like shit, Donny

[agrajag]

And SCOTUS just approved his travel ban no questions asked. They must be reeeeing hard over at Reee.

Speaking of which, wasn't the original executive order a temporary ban. Surely they must have ironed out the extreme vetting of foreign travelers by now.

[Nola]

Speaking of which, wasn't the original executive order a temporary ban. Surely they must have ironed out the extreme vetting of foreign travelers by now.

Yeah, if you are brown don't come around.

[agrajag]

Mueller better stretch this out to when/if Democrats have a Congress majority. No way this Congress will do anything with people like Jim Jordan being in the judiciary committee.

The average length of a special counsel investigation is something like 900 days.

So as long as trends hold there should at least be some break in the ice come 2018. Though at best it will just be like the Nixon era where Democrats will have a slight majority, so they can strengthen investigations, but lack the numbers to execute any actions without Republican cooperation.

I honestly do think the only way Trump goes is in 2020 or resigns.

Well, there is another way...

https://thetakeout.com/trumps-diet-is-horrifying-but-he-can-buy-a-triple-bypa-1820975126

Keep eating like shit, Donny

meh, he's like one of those grandpas that chain smokes, eats like shit, doesn't take care of himself, and lives well into his 90's. That mother fucker will catch a cold at my funeral.

[thehunter116]

And SCOTUS just approved his travel ban no questions asked. They must be reeeeing hard over at Reee.

Speaking of which, wasn't the original executive order a temporary ban. Surely they must have ironed out the extreme vetting of foreign travelers by now.

Actually they have understood over at Era that it was procedural.

I'm still laughing at the stupidity of this group. I mean seriously talking and working with known Russian intelligence while under investigation.
 

[Nola]

New evidence that Roy Moore dated a 17 year old

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evidence-of-relationship-with-roy-moore-when-she-was-17/2017/12/04/0c3d1cde-d903-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html

I feel like you when you have already crossed that boundary of looking past or rationalizing away molesting a 14 year old, more evidence of a 34 year old dating a 17 year old just becomes mental gymnastics on easy mode.

[Mandark]

Speaking of which, wasn't the original executive order a temporary ban.

Yeah. It was signed in late January and was for 90 days. So should have expired by May anyways.