We are all Slave now.

[LessinSF]

Ha.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Ha.

Too wordy.

Hank (the only one here to ever make the New Yorker Caption Contest finals) Chinaski

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think the Mutha Fucka needs to start getting rid of some of the alligators he's let loose so he can focus on his criminal and impeachment defenses.

He needs to beg for mercy. He's just so fucked. It's so bad that even Buzzfeed is getting in body blows.

He can’t beg. Alienates the rabid base. He’s going to keep swinging and deny everything Cohen says.

Expect him to appeal to the base even more. I think his only way out is to do what Stone recommended: Galvanize his followers and create the fear his impeachment would create widespread social unrest. Only problem for Trump there is that this idiotic shutdown is hurting that base.

He’s at war on all fronts. One of the toughest enemies, perhaps the toughest, is his own impulsivity.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebastian, still wondering if you think there's nothing to the Russia story.

eta: Someone I don't know on Twitter:

Imagine 10 years ago getting this fortune cookie: *Buzzfeed* News will break the story on President *Trump* obstructing justice to conceal *collusion with Russia*

I don’t think there will be collusion involving him directly. I think this latest Cohen admission is Trump trying to cover up a business deal that might create a conflict of interest investigation. That’s different from collusion.

It’s a classic “cover up is worse than crime” scenario.

I think he’s just dumb enough to have had no idea there was a crime/fraud exception to atty/client privilege, or that Cohen could be made to talk.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don’t think there will be collusion involving him directly. I think this latest Cohen admission is Trump trying to cover up a business deal that might create a conflict of interest investigation. That’s different from collusion.

It’s a classic “cover up is worse than crime” scenario.

I think he’s just dumb enough to have had no idea there was a crime/fraud exception to atty/client privilege, or that Cohen could be made to talk.

Since the word "collusion" is ambiguous, it's hard for me to tell what you think we're not going to find. The big picture is that Trump had financial dealings with the Russians, directly involving the Russian government, for some time, and at the same time has used his position (as a candidate and as the President) to benefit Russia. Are you saying there won't be proof of an express quid pro quo? If there isn't, and there is proof that (e.g.) Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress, it's not that the cover-up is *worse* than the crime -- the crime is still worse, but he gets nailed for the things that prosecutors can prove.

Anyway, the idea that there's no evidence of collusion is laughable. It's right in front of us.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Since the word "collusion" is ambiguous, it's hard for me to tell what you think we're not going to find. The big picture is that Trump had financial dealings with the Russians, directly involving the Russian government, for some time, and at the same time has used his position (as a candidate and as the President) to benefit Russia. Are you saying there won't be proof of an express quid pro quo? If there isn't, and there is proof that (e.g.) Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress, it's not that the cover-up is *worse* than the crime -- the crime is still worse, but he gets nailed for the things that prosecutors can prove.

Anyway, the idea that there's no evidence of collusion is laughable. It's right in front of us.

My understanding of the collusion alleged is that it relates to cooperation in hacking DNC and sharing stolen info. Whether Trump has a conflict of interest in regard to business dealings which he sought to hide is another issue.

I think we’ll find he has business conflicts all over the place, including Russia, and that he worked to hide them. I don’t think we’ll find some grand conspiracy between him and the Russians regarding interference in the election.

The Russians didn’t need him to assist in interfering in the election. They just needed him to happily parrot what they stole and disclosed. Perhaps Don Jr. was involved in collusion, as was Stone, but even there, they were opportunists, simply exploiting an opportunity to receive info.

If Trump goes down, it increasingly looks like it’ll be from proof of obstruction.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

My understanding of the collusion alleged is that it relates to cooperation in hacking DNC and sharing stolen info.

Well, there's no allegation in any formal sense. Things get alleged in complaints. There's no complaint. There is an investigation. It's scope is not entirely clear.

Many conservatives play a game of saying, the allegation is that the President did [some straw man]. There's no proof of that. So, no collusion.

But collusion is not a legal term. So it doesn't really mean anything. If you are parsing what collusion is, you are falling for the rhetorical ploy of Trump defenders.

We didn't know that the FBI had a counterintelligence investigation going until this week, and that Mueller took it over. That just goes to show that the scope of what he is doing is not public.

I think we’ll find he has business conflicts all over the place, including Russia, and that he worked to hide them. I don’t think we’ll find some grand conspiracy between him and the Russians regarding interference in the election.

I don't know what you mean by a "grand" conspiracy, but his campaign manager gave the Russians campaign analytics, and the Russians did various things to try to affect the election. That is a conspiracy regarding interference in the election. What else do you need? Or is that not grand enough for you?

The Russians didn’t need him to assist in interfering in the election. They just needed him to happily parrot what they stole and disclosed. Perhaps Don Jr. was involved in collusion, as was Stone, but even there, they were opportunists, simply exploiting an opportunity to receive info.

Winona Ryder didn't need the clothes she walked out of Saks with, but that doesn't mean she wasn't on film doing it.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think the Mutha Fucka needs to start getting rid of some of the alligators he's let loose so he can focus on his criminal and impeachment defenses.

He needs to beg for mercy. He's just so fucked. It's so bad that even Buzzfeed is getting in body blows.

How do you think he's fucked? You think Mitch will actually pull the trigger?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't know what you mean by a "grand" conspiracy, but his campaign manager gave the Russians campaign analytics, and the Russians did various things to try to affect the election. That is a conspiracy regarding interference in the election. What else do you need? Or is that not grand enough for you?

here's what I struggle with- the "hacking" was essentially posting shit on FB to convince simple minded libs they should vote 3rd party or not bother at all. I don't think that is a crime, or is it? So if he contracts with XYZ company to make stupid people waste their votes, is that really a crime? Dirty trick, sure, but a crime? So does the fact that XYZ company is a foreign country make it criminal in and of itself? Don't they have to prove he then granted favors to Russia as Prez?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

How do you think he's fucked? You think Mitch will actually pull the trigger?

FWIW, I don't think he's fucked (in the sense of impeached) until 67 Senators decide it's in their own best interests to impeach him, and as long as they are more scared of his base than they are of swing voters, that's not going to happen.

But I do think he's fucked in the sense of having done things that were illegal and are now provable and are going to continue to derail his presidency.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

here's what I struggle with- the "hacking" was essentially posting shit on FB to convince simple minded libs they should vote 3rd party or not bother at all. I don't think that is a crime, or is it?

Do you remember that the DNC's emails were hacked? Do you think that was a coincidence?

I think there was much more going on than hacking, btw.

So if he contracts with XYZ company to make stupid people waste their votes, is that really a crime? Dirty trick, sure, but a crime?

No.

So does the fact that XYZ company is a foreign country make it criminal in and of itself? Don't they have to prove he then granted favors to Russia as Prez?

There are a ton of different possible crimes here. I think the Senate could legitimately impeach him for taking help from Russia and promising Russia in return that he would help them as President, even if he never did. But you can spin a host of different hypotheticals, and they are more likely going to nail him on the sorts of things where there is documentary proof.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Do you remember that the DNC's emails were hacked? Do you think that was a coincidence?

I think there was much more going on than hacking, btw.

So the "convincing simple people" was fine, in and of itself, but when Russia hacked to get emails to help convince the simple minds a line was crossed?

There are a ton of different possible crimes here. I think the Senate could legitimately impeach him for taking help from Russia and promising Russia in return that he would help them as President, even if he never did. But you can spin a host of different hypotheticals, and they are more likely going to nail him on the sorts of things where there is documentary proof.

Well likely doesn't count until it is no longer likely- the "promising" might be harder to prove? Won't they need some high level Russian to rat that out?

I'm still hoping for stuff to make this no fun, so he decides to not run in 2020, telling us he's fixed everything.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So the "convincing simple people" was fine, in and of itself, but when Russia hacked to get emails to help convince the simple minds a line was crossed?

I'm not sure that convincing simple people is a crime, although I am no expert in campaign-finance law. OTOH, hacking is often criminal.

Well likely doesn't count until it is no longer likely- the "promising" might be harder to prove? Won't they need some high level Russian to rat that out?

Sure, but it was a hypothetical.

I'm still hoping for stuff to make this no fun, so he decides to not run in 2020, telling us he's fixed everything.

I'm not sure that he is wired for fun. His psychological needs are different from many people's.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure that convincing simple people is a crime, although I am no expert in campaign-finance law. OTOH, hacking is often criminal.

For sure. Which is why I asked you to ban Penske for copying my Juan sock and to ban GGG for his Hank Washington Avatar sock- which you seem to have decided was fine

But is there proof our boy endorsed the hack to facilitate the convincing? That was my point.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Well, there's no allegation in any formal sense. Things get alleged in complaints. There's no complaint. There is an investigation. It's scope is not entirely clear.

Rosenstein has no one to blame for the aggravation he's suffered but himself. Mueller's mandate and scope are ridiculously open-ended: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-re...67231/download

Many conservatives play a game of saying, the allegation is that the President did [some straw man]. There's no proof of that. So, no collusion.

But collusion is not a legal term. So it doesn't really mean anything. If you are parsing what collusion is, you are falling for the rhetorical ploy of Trump defenders.

I don't even know where the term "collusion" arose. It seems to have appeared in the media cycle and become the favored description for what's being investigated.

But putting that term aside, there are two sets of activities I see at issue, and I think they are unique enough to require separate analysis. First is Trump: (1) conspiring with Russians to steal DNC material and publish it to influence the election; and, (2) conspiring with Russia to favor Russia post-election in exchange for favorable business deals from Russia. These are the aims/goals of the conspiracy. Second is obstruction of justice -- lying to investigators or otherwise impeding lawful investigation of whether Trump conspired with Russia illegally to influence the election or to get favorable business deals from Russia.

These are two different sets of potentially criminal acts. One includes the conspiracies themselves. The other is the cover-up.

I don't know what you mean by a "grand" conspiracy, but his campaign manager gave the Russians campaign analytics, and the Russians did various things to try to affect the election. That is a conspiracy regarding interference in the election. What else do you need? Or is that not grand enough for you?

That does not prove that Trump himself was involved. It's fair to say members of his campaign conspired with Russia. But when this sort of thing is done - by a competent organization - the person at the top is scrupulously removed from all communications regarding such activities in order to preserve plausible deniability. As Keystone Kops-like as Trump's campaign was, I remain confident they weren't dumb enough to violate that rule. And unless you can prove that Trump himself knew of the specific illegal acts taken by campaign operatives and approved of them, you cannot prove or credibly assert he is guilty of conspiring with Russians. All you can assert is willful ignorance. That's a near impossible charge to prove.

Winona Ryder didn't need the clothes she walked out of Saks with, but that doesn't mean she wasn't on film doing it.

Hacking the DNC, or assisting in someone else hacking the DNC, is a far more serious crime than taking a meeting with someone who tells you they have great info on your opponent which may or may not have been obtained illegally.