Mueller's Patton the back (investigation thread v. 22)

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

First, Trump said he would be happy to talk to Mueller face to face. Then, he said he would give written answers. Now, he won't communicate with the investigation at all. I can't imagine what has him so worried, unless he actually did obstruct justice.

He'll have to be served a subpoena before he cooperates, I hope that's possible and that it happens. I'd love to see what happens! This guy could not possibly act more guilty.

He's too busy running the country or golfing or something

 

[HomerThompson]

That’s called winning Homer.

It's called authoritarianism, dipshit.

 

[computer fogie]

Reality checking in, firing Comey was well within his legal right as president.

There’s literally nothing to answer.

Then why are Trumps lawyers telling him to refuse to cooperate?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

That’s called winning Homer.

At least youre gleeful about living in an authoritarian zhithole country.

 

[Falsedawn]

Amazing that the people who talk about "following the law" are trying to let Dolan off on not answering the special counsel.

Amazing.

 

[andnowweknow]

Then why are Trumps lawyers telling him to refuse to cooperate?

Bro, it's a perjury trap. Get with it. Trump would love to do this but Mueller lacks the integrity to play fair.

 

[HomerThompson]

Amazing that the people who talk about "following the law" are trying to let Dolan off on not answering the special counsel.

Amazing.

Time to start handing out brain busters.

 

[Falsedawn]

Time to start handing out brain busters.

Bigger

 

[bobgeese]

Then why are Trumps lawyers telling him to refuse to cooperate?

Because that’s what lawyers do.

 

[7437]

Bro, it's a perjury trap. Get with it. Trump would love to do this but Mueller lacks the integrity to play fair.

you know that perjury can be avoided by not lying? its super easy.

 

[7437]

Because that’s what lawyers do.

Clinton testified

 

[bobgeese]

Clinton testified

Because Clinton was likely afraid of the political backlash.


Trump gives no fucks.

 

[7437]

Because Clinton was likely afraid of the political backlash.


Trump gives no fucks.

and this seems like a positive thing to you. that he is so massively corrupt and criminal that any testimony is certain to get him impeached.

Amazing.

 

[bobgeese]

and this seems like a positive thing to you. that he is so massively corrupt and criminal that any testimony is certain to get him impeached.

Amazing.

No, it’s that any contradictory statement can be twisted to state he lied under oath.

You know, like the media does every day. Remember, Trump literally made the media side with ms13.

 

[7437]

No, it’s that any contradictory statement can be twisted to state he lied under oath.

You know, like the media does every day. Remember, Trump literally made the media side with ms13.

You know the media isnt able to force congress to impeach correct? In fact, the media isnt part of congress at all.

 

[bobgeese]

In fact, the media isnt part of congress at all.

 

[hillelslovak87]

No, it’s that any contradictory statement can be twisted to state he lied under oath.

You know, like the media does every day. Remember, Trump literally made the media side with ms13.

You literally do not know what literally means.

 

[waiguoren]

Yes, I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong or apologizing, and in this case that does appear to be the case.

This is why I like you. You have much more honor than some of the bots in this thread. @Darkballs, like Donald Trump, never admits fault even when he's proved wrong.

However, there are no credible sources that cite someone other than the Russians having perpetrated this attack....

...

We were deceived about Saddam having WMDs in Iraq and after a year of investigating nothing was found. In this case though after a year of investigating we had more than a dozen Russian operatives indicted

According to FBI Director James Comey and DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, the DNC/Clinton campaign never allowed the FBI/DHS access to their servers. Instead, CrowdStrike, a private company, was allegedly given access to the servers. According to the DNC spokeswoman, CrowdStrike provided images of the servers to the FBI in addition to their own forensics/analysis. I'm assuming the indictment you referred to also relied heavily on CrowdStrike's work.

So as I see it, your belief in this narrative hinges entirely on the credibility of CrowdStrike. Why do you trust them so much, particularly given the claims of Comey and Johnson?

What do you think of this post? Just Russian propaganda?

as well as another more than a dozen indictments handed out during the course of the probe including to high level members of Trump's campaign or administration.

Why would you throw this in there? We're talking about the hack of the DNC e-mail system and John Podesta's e-mails. None of those other indictments appear to have anything to do with that hack.

 

[waiguoren]

Nobody is sure of anything. If you think all this is looking rosy for Trump, have at it. Like I said, there is no end game in any of this for you. You'll just disappear if Trump goes down in flames

This is looking rosy for Trump.

 

[waiguoren]

(partial transcript)

FOX Host: Ahead of this big week, the president came out swinging against Jeff Sessions. He said this:



The president is basically referring to charges of two congressmen right before the mid-term election. Alan, your reaction?

Dershowitz: I don't think the president should be commenting on people who have been charged. We have to know what the facts are. One of them were charged by the Obama administration. The other one, the insider trading, was charged by the Trump administration. I don't think the Justice Department should be partisan and should have a different standard for indicting Democrats and Republicans. There are rules about the mid-term election, but these indictments came within those rules. It's usually a two-month rule. So I think it's a misplaced criticism by the president and could be dangerous if Democrats and Republicans alike started to politicize who was prosecuted and when they were prosecuted and what impact it could have on elections. That's a dangerous trend.

FOX Host: You're right. This is an important point that you're making. But Alan, this is a bigger issue between the president and his attorney general. You know that.

Dershowitz: I agree.

Host: Jeff Sessions has been in place since the president began his term and he recused himself from Russia, and as a result has been unwilling or unable to get involved in any of these headlines. We know what when on in the 2016 election at the top of the FBI and the DOJ. We know that there was really no investigation of Hillary Clinton and Jeff Sessions doesn't do anything about it.

Dershowitz: I think Jeff Sessions disappointed the president by not telling him in advance that he might have to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. He never would have gotten the job if he had told the president that. I think the second point is, when he recused himself, he should have offered his letter of resignation. He did offer a letter of resignation later, but it was at a time when it would be politically difficult. Right now I think it's very, very difficult for the president to be seen as firing Jeff Sessions in order to influence the Russia investigation. Obviously, it would depend on who he replaced him with. Remember that when we had the Watergate scandal, Edward Leavey, the President of the University of Chicago and the former dean of the law school was picked to be attorney general. If the president would pick somebody like that, there would be no criticism. But if he were to pick a "loyalist" who would try to influence the investigation, that would be perceived as somehow putting his thumb on the scale of justice and it would not work well for him. I think he understands that.